The two tech titans have been bickering since at least 2014, trading barbs over each other's products and business models. Over the years, their battle has escalated to include public jabs, pointed ad campaigns, and even a legal dispute.
Here's when the rivalry began, and everything that's happened since.
The feud between Zuckerberg and Cook became public in 2014, when Cook lambasted Facebook's business model.
Apple CEO Tim Cook criticized Facebook's business model in 2014.
During the interview — which took place in the weeks following the infamous leaks of multiple female celebrities' nude photos stored on their iCloud accounts — Cook espoused Apple's commitment to privacy while denouncing the business models of companies like Google and Facebook.
"I think everyone has to ask, how do companies make their money? Follow the money," Cook said. "And if they're making money mainly by collecting gobs of personal data, I think you have a right to be worried. And you should really understand what's happening to that data."
Shortly after, Cook reiterated his stance in an open letter on Apple's dedicated privacy site.
"A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you're not the customer. You're the product," Cook wrote.
Cook's comments rankled Zuckerberg, who called the claims "ridiculous" and blasted Apple products as being expensive.
Mark Zuckerberg responded with a critique of Apple's prices.
Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
In an interview with Time later that year, Zuckerberg was reportedly visibly irritated by Cook's assertions.
"A frustration I have is that a lot of people increasingly seem to equate an advertising business model with somehow being out of alignment with your customers," Zuckerberg told Time's Lev Grossman. "I think it's the most ridiculous concept. What, you think because you're paying Apple that you're somehow in alignment with them? If you were in alignment with them, then they'd make their products a lot cheaper!"
Their squabble came to a head following the Cambridge Analytica scandal when Cook criticized Facebook's actions.
Cook has taken a shot at Facebook over its infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Edgar Su/Reuters
In 2018, a whistleblower revealed that consulting firm Cambridge Analytica harvested user data without consent from 50 million users.
Cook responded: "What would I do? I wouldn't be in this situation."
Cook said that Facebook should have regulated itself when it came to user data, but that "I think we're beyond that here." He also doubled down on his stance that Facebook considers its users its product.
"The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer — if our customer was our product," Cook said. "We've elected not to do that."
Zuckerberg hit back, calling Cook's comments "extremely glib."
Zuckerberg again responded by calling Apple products expensive.
Andrew Harnik/AP
"You know, I find that argument, that if you're not paying that somehow we can't care about you, to be extremely glib. And not at all aligned with the truth," Zuckerberg said during an interview on The Ezra Klein Show podcast.
He refuted the idea that Facebook isn't focused on serving people and once again criticized the premium Apple places on its products.
"I think it's important that we don't all get Stockholm Syndrome and let the companies that work hard to charge you more convince you that they actually care more about you," he said. "Because that sounds ridiculous to me."
Privately, Zuckerberg was reportedly outraged by Cook's remarks — so much so that he ordered his employees to switch to Android devices.
Zuckerberg reportedly had management employees at Facebook switch from Apple to Android devices.
Yuri Gripas/Reuters
In November 2018, The New York Times published a blockbuster report detailing the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Times reported that Cook's comments had "infuriated" Zuckerberg, who ordered employees on his management team who used iPhones to switch to Android.
Soon after the report published, Facebook wrote a blog post refuting some of the reporting by The Times — but not the Zuckerberg-Cook feud.
"Tim Cook has consistently criticized our business model and Mark has been equally clear he disagrees. So there's been no need to employ anyone else to do this for us," Facebook wrote. "And we've long encouraged our employees and executives to use Android because it is the most popular operating system in the world."
In 2019, Zuckerberg and Cook had a meeting at the annual Sun Valley retreat in Idaho that went poorly, according to The New York Times.
The two reportedly had a contentious meeting at Sun Valley in 2019.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images;Xinhua/Liu Jie via Getty Images;Insider
According to The Times, Zuckerberg asked Cook for his advice following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Cook told Zuckerberg Facebook should delete the user data his company collects from outside of its family of apps, which "stunned" Zuckerberg and was akin to Cook saying Facebook's business was "untenable," The Times reported.
In August 2020, Zuckerberg jumped in the fray as Apple faced criticism over its App Store policies.
Zuckerberg has called Apple a "gatekeeper" because of its App Store.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
During a company-wide meeting, Zuckerberg openly criticized Apple, saying it has a "unique stranglehold as a gatekeeper on what gets on phones," according to a report from BuzzFeed News.
Zuckerberg also said that the App Store blocks innovation and competition and "allows Apple to charge monopoly rents," BuzzFeed reported.
Apple has been facing antitrust scrutiny from Congress and has been strongly criticized by developers — most notably "Fortnite" creator Epic Games — for the 30% fee it takes from App Store purchases. In 2020, Facebook said Apple blocked an update to Facebook's iOS app that would have informed users about the fee Apple charges.
Apple's iOS 14.5 software update angered Facebook, which says the privacy features could destroy part of its business.
Apple's iOS 14.5 update was a sore point for Facebook.
Apple
That version of Apple's smartphone operating system, iOS, made it so that iPhone app developers would need permission from users to collect and track their data. While this affects any company that makes iOS apps, it also has a direct impact on Facebook's advertising business: It uses data tracking to dictate which ads are served to users.
In an August 2020 blog post, Facebook said it may be forced to shut down Audience Network for iOS, a tool that personalizes ads in third-party apps.
"This is not a change we want to make, but unfortunately, Apple's updates to iOS 14 have forced this decision," Facebook said.
In the ads, Facebook argued that the changes would hurt small businesses that advertise on Facebook's platform.
"Without personalized ads, Facebook data shows that the average small business advertiser stands to see a cut of over 60% in their sales for every dollar they spend," the ad reads, which was posted by Twitter user Dave Stangis.
"Users should know when their data is being collected and shared across other apps and websites — and they should have the choice to allow that or not," an Apple spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, Facebook also said it would help Epic Games, the company behind "Fortnite," in its legal battle against Apple.
Facebook indicated it'd support Epic Games in its legal battle against Apple.
Epic Games; Getty Images
Epic Games had accused Apple of violating antitrust laws and engaging in anticompetitive behavior regarding the App Store's fees and policies.
Zuckerberg also lashed out at Apple during an earnings call in 2021, saying the company frequently interferes with how Facebook's apps work.
Zuckerberg in 2021 accused Apple of making "misleading" privacy claims.
Facebook
When discussing Facebook's suite of messaging apps during the company's fourth-quarter earnings call, Zuckerberg made a clear dig at Apple, saying the iPhone maker made "misleading" privacy claims.
"Now Apple recently released so-called nutrition labels, which focused largely on metadata that apps collect rather than the privacy and security of people's actual messages, but iMessage stores non-end-to-end encrypted backups of your messages by default unless you disable iCloud," Zuckerberg said.
Zuckerberg went on to describe Apple as "one of our biggest competitors" and said that because Apple is increasingly relying on services to fuel its business, it "has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own."
"This impacts the growth of millions of businesses around the world," he added.
But Cook hasn't backed down from his view that Facebook's business model of harvesting user data and selling it to advertisers is harmful to consumers.
Cook repeated his criticisms of Facebook's handling of user data.
AP
During a speech at the European Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference the same week, Cook discussed business models that prioritize user engagement and rely on user data to make money. Though he didn't mention Facebook by name, Cook made several references that alluded to the platform.
"At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible," Cook said.
Facebook launched another ad campaign in 2021 aimed at proving the need for personalized advertising amid its ongoing battle with Apple.
Facebook took out an ad in 2021 arguing for personalized advertising.
Nick Wass/Associated Press
The initiative, titled "Good Ideas Deserve to be Found," makes the case that personalized ads help Facebook users discover small businesses, particularly during the pandemic.
"Every business starts with an idea, and being able to share that idea through personalized ads is a game changer for small businesses," Facebook said in a blog post announcing the theme. "Limiting the use of personalized ads would take away a vital growth engine for businesses."
Cook called Facebook's objections to the privacy update "flimsy arguments" during an interview with The New York Times.
Cook said Facebook isn't one of Apple's biggest competitors, contrary to Zuckerberg's previous remarks on the subject.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
During a podcast interview with Kara Swisher, Cook said that he believes society is in a privacy crisis and that he's been "shocked" that there's been pushback to the new feature to this degree.
"We know these things are flimsy arguments," Cook told The Times. "I think that you can do digital advertising and make money from digital advertising without tracking people when they don't know they're being tracked."
Cook also said he doesn't view Facebook as a competitor, contrary to what Zuckerberg has said.
"Oh, I think that we compete in some things," Cook said. "But no, if I may ask who our biggest competitor are, they would not be listed. We're not in the social networking business."
Apple's iOS 14.5 update finally rolled out in April 2021, and Facebook paid steeply for it.
Facebook says Apple's iOS 14.5 update has cost it billions of dollars.
In March 2024, Meta, Microsoft, X, and Match Group joined Epic Games in arguing that Apple has been flouting a 2021 court-ordered injunction that required the company to let developers show users links to alternative payment systems beyond the App Store.
Meta has sided with Epic Games in the developer's legal war with Apple.
Getty Images
Apple, for its part, said in January that it had "fully complied" with the injunction.
The latest battleground in Apple and Meta's feud is their work on virtual and augmented reality.
Now, Cook and Zuckerberg are feuding over their Apple Vision Pro and Quest headsets, respectively.
"I have to say that before this, I expected that Quest would be the better value for most people since it's really good and like seven times less expensive, but after using [Vision Pro] I don't just think that Quest is the better value, it's the better product, period," Zuckerberg said in a video on Threads. "They have different strengths, but overall Quest is better for the vast majority of things that people use mixed reality for."
Zuckerberg says many people "assumed that Vision Pro would be higher quality because it's Apple and it costs $3,000 more."
"I know that some fanboys get upset whenever anyone dares to question if Apple's going to be the leader in a new category," he said. "But the reality is that every generation of computing has an open and a closed model. And yeah, in mobile, Apple's closed model won, but it's not always that way."
"I still think that that's going to be awesome and is the long-term mature state for the product," he said. "But now, it seems pretty clear that there's also a meaningful market for fashionable AI glasses without a display."
"As soon as I put the headset on, I can see what trade-offs they made and why they made them. And, perhaps definitionally, those aren't the trade-offs I would have made," he said.
Bosworth called the Vision Pro's motion blur "really distracting" and said the headset was "very uncomfortable to use."
Southwest Airlines on Thursday posted a larger-than-anticipated quarterly loss and said it expects to receive just 20 Boeing 737 Max 8 planes this year, 26 fewer than previously expected, as the manufacturer works to fix production problems
With so few planes being delivered, the all-Boeing carrier has undertaken cost-cutting measures like limiting hiring, reducing service in some markets, and slashing 4 airports completely.
The airports losing Southwest service are:
Syracuse Hancock International Airport in New York
Bellingham International Airport in Washington
Cozumel International Airport in Mexico
Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Texas
Southwest also said it would "significantly restructure other markets," including putting capacity reductions at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
"To improve our financial performance, we have intensified our network optimization efforts to address underperforming markets," Southwest CEO Bob Jordan said in the earnings report, noting the impact could go into 2025.
"I want to sincerely thank our Employees, the airports, and the communities for all their incredible support over the years."
None of the four airports will be left without airline service after Southwest's exit, though Bellingham in north Washington state near the Canadian border will have only a few flight options.
Meanwhile, Southwest will still serve Houston from its busy Hobby hub.
All three have voiced frustration over the fewer aircraft they'll receive from Boeing this year, effectively slowing growth and forcing them to cut flying — something that could increase airfare.
Moreover, Boeing chair, Larry Kellner, will not run for reelection, and Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stan Deal will also be stepping down, the company said. Thirty-year Boeing veteran Stephanie Pope has replaced Deal as the company's first female head.
Sam Salehpour, a veteran Boeing employee and 40-year aerospace engineer, told Senate lawmakers last week that the planemaker threatened him to keep quiet about what he saw as quality lapses on the Boeing 787 and Boeing 777 planes.
Russia's economy can't afford to win or lose the war in Ukraine, one economist says.
That's because Russia can't afford the cost of rebuilding and securing Ukraine.
The cost of repairing its own nation is already "massive," Renaud Foucart says.
Russia's economy is completely dominated by its war in Ukraine, so much that Moscow cannot afford either to win or lose the war, according to one European economist.
Renaud Foucart, a senior economics lecturer at Lancaster University, pointed to the dire economic situation facing Russia as the war in Ukraine wraps up its second year.
Russia's GDP grew 5.5% year-over-year over the third quarter of 2023, according to data from the Russian government. But most of that growth is being fueled by the nation's monster military spending, Foucart said, with plans for the Kremlin to spend a record 36.6 trillion rubles, or $386 billion on defense this year.
"Military pay, ammunition, tanks, planes, and compensation for dead and wounded soldiers, all contribute to the GDP figures. Put simply, the war against Ukraine is now the main driver of Russia's economic growth" Foucart said in an op-ed for The Conversation this week.
Other areas of Russia's economy are hurting as the war drags on. Moscow is slammed with a severe labor shortage, thanks to young professionals fleeing the country or being pulled into the conflict. The nation is now short around 5 million workers, according to one estimate, which is causing wages to soar.
Inflation is high at 7.4% — nearly double the 4% target of its central bank. Meanwhile, direct investment in the country has collapsed, falling around $8.7 billion in the first three quarters of 2023, per data from Russia's central bank.
That all puts the Kremlin in a tough position, no matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Even if Russia wins, the nation can't afford to rebuild and secure Ukraine, due to the financial costs as well as the impact of remaining isolated from the rest of the global market.
Western nations have shunned trade with Russia since it invaded Ukraine in 2022, which economists have said could severely crimp Russia's long-term economic growth.
As long as it remains isolated, Russia's "best hope" is to become "entirely dependent" on China, one of its few remaining strategic allies, Foucart said.
Meanwhile, the costs of rebuilding its own nation are already "massive," he added, pointing to problems like broken infrastructure and social unrest in Russia.
"A protracted stalemate might be the only solution for Russia to avoid total economic collapse," Foucart wrote. "The Russian regime has no incentive to end the war and deal with that kind of economic reality. So it cannot afford to win the war, nor can it afford to lose it. Its economy is now entirely geared towards continuing a long and ever deadlier conflict."
Markets are too optimistic about a soft landing, JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon told The Wall Street Journal.
He expects soft landing odds to be half of what markets are pricing in.
"Don't get lulled into a false sense of security because the today looks okay."
Things aren't looking particularly rosy for markets and the economy, Jamie Dimon said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
"The odds of a soft landing, the market kind of prices in 70%. I think it's half of that," the JPMorgan chief said. "It looks a little bit more like the '70s to me, and I point out to a lot of people, things looked pretty rosy in 1972 — they were not rosy in 1973."
Dimon referred to a US slowdown at that time, when an oil crisis sent inflation soaring and a recession took hold, a dire situation known as stagflation.
But this time around, Dimon sees different reasons for why markets should stay cautious.
That includes massive fiscal deficits and upcoming inflation drivers, from green energy initiatives to the world's rearming. Dimon also remains wary about the Federal Reserve's efforts to reduce its balance sheet, citing that no one knows the full effects of doing so.
"Don't get lulled into a false sense of security because the today looks okay, that tomorrow is gonna be okay," he said.
For now, the economy is visibly strong, Dimon said, with consumers staying in good shape. But even that hints at problems to come, given how reliant the economy has become on fiscal spending for its own success.
"The deficit is 6% of GDP, almost $2 trillion," he said. "That's driving a lot of this growth and that will have other consequences, possibly down the road, called inflation, which may not go away like people expect."
Once such problems take hold, they're also likely to stay for the long-term, extending into 2025 and 2026, Dimon warned.
His latest comments are another installment in a slew of warnings Dimon has made this past month. In his April letter to shareholders, the CEO also cautioned against market optimism, following up with similar outlooks during JPMorgan's earnings call.
Justices are under pressure to issue a quick ruling on Donald Trump's sweeping immunity claim.
Special counsel Jack Smith wants justices to send the case right to trial.
A delay would increase the likelihood Trump avoids another potential trial before the election.
Within the first minutes of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments Thursday in a landmark case over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in a federal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a hypothetical question surrounding a president ordering an assassination was posed.
"If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump's attorney D. John Sauer.
Sauer argued it could.
"It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act," Saur replied.
Sotomayor interjected, "It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons."
"And isn't that the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility, he's doing it for personal gain?" Sotomayer asked.
Sauer followed up, "I agree with that characterization of the indictment and that confirms immunity."
Sauer and the justices spent some time Thursday morning debating whether certain hypothetical situations would be considered "private acts" or an "official acts" under Sauer's argument.
The nation's highest court will weigh whether to fully or even partially support Trump's unprecedented claim of presidential immunity, which protects former presidents from facing criminal charges if their actions were related to the job.
It's unclear when the Supreme Court will release its decision on Trump's claims. If the justices adhere to their normal schedule, a ruling would be released at the end of June. Special counsel Jack Smith has urged justices to deal with the former president's case quickly so the trial over Trump's underlying charges related to trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election can proceed.
Trump's trial was supposed to have begun last month, but depending on how the Supreme Court rules in this case, it could be delayed past the election. Legal observers have repeatedly pointed out that the former president could count it as a victory even if justices reject his sweeping immunity claims if their decision takes up more time. If Trump were to win the election in November, he could even find ways to scuttle Smith's prosecution entirely.
As of now, Trump's Manhattan hush-money trial is his only criminal trial to have started. Trump could not attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court due to the New York trial, in which he stands charged with 34 counts of business fraud related to hush-money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.
His other cases, including another Smith-led case focused on Trump's hoarding of classified documents, don't yet have trial dates and are unlikely to be tried before the election.
The justices could also fundamentally change the presidency itself. Never before has a former president faced criminal prosecution. Their ruling could have sweeping effects on the future of the presidency, particularly if they accept some of Trump's argument that a Nixon-era Supreme Court decision on civil immunity applies to criminal charges as well. Smith and many legal scholars have argued that such immunity could empower the presidency to the point where the nation's highest office in the land would be above the law the executive branch is required to enforce.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly hinted that if immunity is not granted, they may try to prosecute President Joe Biden as a form of retribution.
The former president has never been shy about suggesting his political rivals should be sent to prison.
President Joe Biden signed the TikTok divest-or-ban bill into law on Wednesday.
TikTok said it would challenge the law in court, citing First-Amendment violations.
Legal experts said Congress' national-security argument could still win over free-speech concerns in courts.
Congress passed a bill this week that will force TikTok's owner to sell its US assets or face removal from mobile-app stores. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on Wednesday. Parent company ByteDance now has between 9 months and a year to sell or spin off the app in the US.
What comes next will be an all-out legal battle.
TikTok has vowed to "move to the courts," where it plans to challenge the law as "a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans on TikTok," per an internal memo sent to staff on Saturday. The company will likely ask for a preliminary injunction, stopping the countdown clock on its sale until legal questions are sorted out.
Other parties, like TikTok creators, may launch separate legal challenges in the coming weeks, as they have done in the past. First-Amendment-focused organizations like the ACLU or the EFF could file amicus briefs defending TikTokers' free-speech rights.
Will these legal challenges work? Maybe…
Earlier attempts to ban or force a sale of TikTok often haven't stood up in court.
Trump's 2020 order to ban TikTok was halted by a federal judge who said it likely exceeded executive authority. A Montana law that attempted to ban the app was struck down in 2023 by a federal judge who said it overstepped state power and "likely violates the First Amendment."
This time, however, could be different. The reason? Congress is arguing that TikTok poses a national-security risk, and the courts tend to defer to that governing body when it comes to issues of national security, experts told Business Insider. The federal government has more authority on that subject than a state like Montana does.
"The court will look at the merits of the case, but really driven by deference to Congress as having much more understanding of the national-security risks than the judges themselves do," Matthew Schettenhelm, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, told BI. Schettenhelm estimated the law had a 70% chance of surviving a legal challenge.
It's a coin toss when national-security interests come up against speech protections
If this law wasn't about protecting national security, TikTok's case would be a slam dunk. Its argument that the law violates free speech is clear, as passing a bill that could lead to a ban will box out tens of millions of Americans from an app they use to say things every day.
While the bill is framed around forcing new ownership of TikTok, it's likely to result in a ban, which strengthens the free-speech argument. The Chinese government has signaled it opposes a TikTok divestment. Its foreign ministry said last month that a forced sale was "sheer robbers' logic." Its government has the final say on the export of TikTok's algorithm, which would make the app much harder to spin-off.
Restricting free speech would be a big problem for the bill if it didn't have national-security interests at its core. While First-Amendment arguments are well supported in court, national-security concerns also have a lot of sway, legal experts told BI.
"The First Amendment is the trump card that basically allows you to prevail if you can plausibly make a First-Amendment argument," said G.S. Hans, an associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and associate director of its First-Amendment clinic. "National security also is a trump card, and the government often wins when it claims that. The question for me is, which trump card does the court think is more valuable?"
Security arguments have stood up in the past for more narrow cases against TikTok. A federal judge upheld a Texas law that blocked state employees from using the app on state-owned devices and networks, saying it was a "reasonable restriction on access to TikTok in light of Texas's concerns."
Show us your smoking-gun evidence, Congress
Legal experts said the evidence the US government brings to court to prove that TikTok is a national-security risk will be central to its case. It has to demonstrate that a forced divestiture or outright ban is necessary.
"It can't be just conclusory, or in other words to say, 'We think there's a national security threat. Therefore we should ban the app,'" said Lena Shapiro, director of the First Amendment clinic at the University of Illinois College of Law. "They have to provide evidence."
Congress' bipartisan bill is the culmination of years of political attacks from Washington on TikTok's operations. Politicians fear its owner ByteDance, which is headquartered in China, could be forced to share US user data with the Chinese Communist Party because of a standing National Intelligence Law. US officials have also raised concerns that the CCP could use TikTok to censor or promote information and even influence an election, serving its own interests. TikTok has denied both of these claims.
"We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail," a TikTok spokesperson told BI in a statement. "We have invested billions of dollars to keep US data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation."
Congress hasn't proven that an outright sale or ban of TikTok is the only way to protect national-security interests. Other less severe efforts like a national data privacy law could solve some of its concerns without limiting speech, for example.
"The government bears the burden of pointing to an important interest in instituting this law," said Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which filed a legal challenge against Texas's state-device ban last year. "There's the onus of showing that it could not achieve its interest in narrower ways."
High-mileage EVs, like these for sale from Hertz, can be a red flag.
Hertz Car Sales
A $22,000 Tesla might be too good to be true, but you can find good deals right now.
High mileage on a used EV can be a red flag.
EV's already depreciate a lot faster than gas cars.
A slew of used Teslas have hit the Hertz car sales website after the company announced Thursday it planned to sell off 10,000 more electric vehicles from its fleet than originally planned, bringing the fire sale's total to 30,000.
Across the US, there are nearly 3,000 EVs listed on the firm's sales website — 1,500 of them Teslas — with Model 3s asking as low as $22,000 when we checked. (And even lower for a Chevy Bolt).
Screenshot of used Tesla listing from Hertz Car Sales website. High-mileage EVs can be a crapshoot.
Hertz Car Sales
It's a screaming deal for shoppers in the market for a used Tesla or any budget-minded EV shopper, a demographic slowly making up most of the electric car market.
A car-rental company like Hertz is always a good place to look for a deal on a used car, but when it comes to EVs, there are a number of different pitfalls to keep in mind since the used market is not near as mature for battery-powered vehicles.
Mileage and battery usage
A used Tesla that has been in a rental fleet is likely to used much more frequently than one that's been personally owned.
You can see that in the difference in mileage when you look on Kelley Blue Book for a used Model 3. One example in Southeast Michigan was listed for $27,995 at a local dealership with 46,171 miles.
Screenshot of a used Tesla Model 3 listing on KBB
Business Insider
Another $20,125 Model 3 we found on the Hertz website in January, a 2021 model, was listed with 92,789 miles.
Mileage is always something to consider when shopping for a used car, but with electric vehicles little is known at this early stage about battery deterioration at high mileages. This mystery in the valuation equation has created a headache for the industry as more electric cars hit the used market.
Maintenance
Used cars tend to require more maintenance than a car fresh from the factory. With an EV that can look different than a simple part or filter replacement.
This Model 3 sitting in a Hertz service bay can be yours for a cool $23,151.
Business Insider
One of the reasons Hertz cited in its Thursday filing for reducing its EV fleet was the elevated cost of maintenance for these vehicles. Teslas in particular are notoriously difficult to service, due to the lack of brick-and-mortar infrastructure for Tesla service and the level of technology packed into the cars.
Even something as simple as a fender bender can be difficult to manage with a Tesla, and these cars are a lot easier to total than their gas-powered counterparts.
Consider the cost of keeping your Tesla charged
While $20,000 is an incredible deal in today's car market (the average new car sells for around $46,000, and the average new EV closer to $50,000), adding an EV to your driveway comes with more than just the sticker price on the car.
In order to get the most out of an electric vehicle, it's usually recommended to have some form of fast charging at home. These chargers cost anywhere from $250 to $750, and installation can run you somewhere around $1,600.
Depending on your state, the energy usage for overnight charging can start to get pricey as well.
Electric cars depreciate quickly
Perhaps one of the reasons you can get such a good deal on a Tesla at Hertz right now is that the outlook for EV value retention is pretty grim at the moment.
Tesla's Model 3 does fare the best in resale values, only falling 42.9% in five years, but as Tesla lathers on more discounts for new models, that could quicken the pace of depreciation.
Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell delivers remarks during a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Reuters/Carlos Barria
It's still likely the Fed will issue its first rate cut this June, Citi economist Veronica Clark said.
That's because central bankers will need to support a weakening labor market, Clark told Yahoo Finance.
The job market has shown signs of weakening in some sectors, like manufacturing.
The Federal Reserve is still likely to cut rates in June in order to prop up the labor market amid a slowdown in hiring, according to Citi economist Veronica Clark.
Speaking with Yahoo Finance this week, Clark pointed to signs of weakness in the US labor market, despite robust job growth seen so far this year. The US added 303,000 payrolls last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the third straight month of stronger-than-anticipated hiring.
But that growth could start to slow later in 2024, Clark predicted. Manufacturing employment activity continued to contract in March, a sign that hiring is already starting to weaken in some sectors. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, has inched higher in recent months, with the total jobless rate notching a 2-year-high of 3.9% in February.
"We have a base case for June still," Clark said of rate cuts, though she noted a July Fed rate cut was also possible. "If anything, we think inflation is pretty sticky, but we think the Fed is looking at some of this labor market data … and really getting worried that we might be entering a weaker labor market."
Fed officials raised interest rates 525 basis-points over the last two years. That's helped tame inflation but has raised the risk of a recession, the first signs of which could crop up in the labor market, economists have warned.
While Clark anticipates looser Fed policy, investors have pushed back on their outlook for Fed rate cuts this year after a hotter-than-expected inflation report in March. Markets are now pricing in just one or two cuts by December, according to the CME FedWatch tool, down from as many as seven rate cuts projected at the start of 2024.
A black miniature poodle, pictured, the same breed as Raven — the dog at the center of the custody battle.
iStock/Getty Images
A New York City lawyer is suing his ex-boyfriend, also a lawyer, for custody of a miniature poodle.
The couple purchased the dog — Raven — together in 2020, but broke up last month.
Taylor Leighton, who called the dog his 'child,' is also seeking more than $200,000 in damages.
A New York lawyer is suing his former boyfriend, also a lawyer, for custody of their miniature poodle and more than $200,000 in damages, according to an affidavit published by the Daily Beast.
According to the affidavit, Taylor Leighton, who works for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, is seeking the recovery of Countess Raven, a three-year-old black miniature poodle.
The dog, purchased in 2020 from a Minnesota-based breeder, was named after actor Raven-Symoné and "Countess" Luann de Lesseps of "The Real Housewives of New York City," the affidavit said.
The affidavit noted that the dog was purchased from a breeder for $2,791, including a $300 deposit.
In the affidavit, Leighton argued that although Nathan Greess contributed $2,000 toward the purchase, it was only because he owed money for household expenses.
The couple broke up last month, with Leighton claiming it was over his reluctance to commit to marriage.
Leighton argued in the legal document that he was Raven's "primary caretaker" and that they shared a "unique, personal bond" forged by the time he spent with her before his ex-boyfriend woke each morning.
To underscore his commitment to the dog, he wrote in the affidavit how he planned an "extravagant first birthday party" for Raven.
"I spent several days planning and decorating, including blowing up hundreds of balloons and placing decals on the wall to give Raven a special day," he said, adding that he was "one of those crazy pet parents."
He also said in the affidavit that he had not seen the dog since March 10, the day after, he claimed, an altercation led to him being admitted to the hospital and the police being called.
"It has now been more than a month since I have been able to see Raven and I know that this is causing her undue stress and anxiety," Leighton said. "It is certainly causing me extreme anxiety, stress, and depression."
In the affidavit, he also described Raven as more than just a pet: "I consider her to be my child."
Neither Greess nor Leighton immediately responded to Business Insider's requests for comment.
According to Scripps News, pet custody battles have been steadily increasing as a trend over the past few decades. The news channel said that they have become so prevalent that pet-custody mediators now offer "pet-nups."
Leighton said in the affidavit that he had tried to resolve the situation, with the pair's fathers acting as intermediaries, but both had now retained legal counsel.
According to the news outlet, in addition to custody, Leighton is seeking $100,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, $100,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and $7,791 for the purchase of Raven and the cost of her care.
Leighton also requested that a judge order Greess to share custody of the dog until a final determination is reached, according to the Daily Beast.
Mint Butterfield is the child of Stewart Butterfield, left, and Caterina Fake, right.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, Marin County Sheriff's Office, Andrew Toth/Getty Images for Vanity Fair
Mint Butterfield, the teen child of two tech founders, has gone missing in California.
Butterfield, 16, is believed to have run away, local authorities say — perhaps to San Francisco
Authorities are appealing for help finding Butterfield.
Mint Butterfield, the teen child of tech founders who set up Slack and Flickr, went missing over the weekend.
The 16-year-old was last seen on Sunday evening in Bolinas, California, north of San Francisco.
The local sheriff's office put out a missing-juvenile alert on Tuesday seeking information about them.
The alert, described in a Nextdoor post by K. Walther, a deputy in the Marin County Sheriff's Office, said Butterfield was last seen Sunday at 10 p.m.
The following morning, Walther said, Butterfield was gone. She asked for anybody with information to contact the sheriff's office.
The San Francisco Standard wrote that Butterfield was reported missing Monday by their mother, Flickr cofounder Caterina Fake.
Their father is Stewart Butterfield, who cofounded Flickr with Fake and went on to cofound the workplace messaging service Slack.
Representatives for Marin County Sheriff's Office, Stewart Butterfield, and Fake did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Walther's Nextdoor post said Butterfield likely took a suitcase, and may have headed for San Francisco itself.
In the past, Butterfield often visited San Francisco's Tenderloin district, an area known for homelessness, crime, and drugs, officials told The Standard.
DailyMail.com reported that Butterfield may be somewhere else, though, citing a social-media post by a family friend.
The friend, per the report, said Butterfield was seen in Larkspur Landing, north of San Francisco and around a 50-minute drive from Bolinas.
Business Insider was unable to verify the report.
Marin County Sheriff's Office described Butterfield as being five feet tall with "brown/reddish curly hair" and pierced eyebrows. They were last seen wearing a black sweatshirt, flannel pajama pants, and black boots.
Butterfield's parents, Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, cofounded the photo service Flickr together in 2004.
They were married from 2001 until 2007, reported the New York Post, and sold Flickr to Yahoo! for an estimated $30 million in 2005.
Their divorce was finalized in 2007, the same year Mint Butterfield was born, according to the Post.
Stewart Butterfield cofounded Slack in 2013 with Cal Henderson. He left the company in December 2022, Business Insider reported.