Listen to an AI audio recording of this newsletter
A few weeks ago, I was talking with my friend Jeff about how much of life and business runs on default.
We like to imagine that we are constantly making thoughtful, intentional choices. But of course, we are not. We do not have the time, attention, or energy to consciously decide everything. We wake up on the same side of the bed. We drive the same route to work. We run meetings the way meetings have always been run. We renew vendors, repeat pricing models, protect old business lines, keep organizational charts intact, and continue strategic priorities long after the conditions that created them have changed.
This is not a flaw. It is how humans and organizations survive.
If we had to re-decide every choice every day, we would never move. Defaults give us speed. They reduce cognitive load. They create efficiency. They let us focus.
The danger comes when we confuse a default with a decision.
A decision is alive. It was made in a particular context, with particular information, under particular assumptions. A default is what remains after the context changes but the behavior continues.
So the real strategic question is not, “Did we make the right decision?”
It is, “If we arrived here today, knowing what we know now, would we make that same decision again?”
Watching some tennis the other weekend, I thought about this topic through the lens of competition.
In doubles, the first set often feels like discovery. You are learning your opponents’ patterns. Who attacks the net? Who lobs under pressure? Who returns cross-court by instinct? Who gets tight on second serve? You are also learning yourselves. Are you communicating well? Are you moving together? Are you playing the match you intended to play, or simply reacting?
Then the match reaches one set all.
Something changes.
It is not that the first two sets did not matter. They mattered deeply. They got you here. But at one set all, the match begins again with better information. You can no longer say, “This is our plan because it was our plan.” You have evidence now. You have felt the pace. You have seen the patterns. You know what is working and what is wishful thinking.
That is the moment to pause and ask: If this match started right now, what would we do?
Strategy works the same way.
We should not revisit every decision constantly. That would create paralysis. But we must build in moments when we deliberately step out of default and back into decision.
This is what I mean by changing the game.
Changing the game is not always a dramatic reinvention. Sometimes it begins with the humility to ask whether the game you are playing is still the game that matters.
Apple may be entering such a moment.
New Direction, New Strategy
In April 2026, Apple announced that Tim Cook will become executive chairman and John Ternus, Apple’s senior vice president of Hardware Engineering, will become CEO on September 1, 2026. Ternus has been at Apple since 2001 and has been deeply involved in the engineering of major products including the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and AirPods.
This leadership transition matters not because Apple is abandoning what worked, but because it may be revisiting what the next game requires.
Under Cook, Apple won one of the greatest strategic games in modern business: the move from product company to platform and services powerhouse. In 2025, Apple described its services business as having a record-breaking year, and its fiscal fourth-quarter results showed services revenue reaching a new all-time high.
That was not a small shift. It changed Apple’s revenue mix, investor story, customer relationship, and strategic logic. Apple was no longer only selling devices. It was expanding the economic life of the customer relationship through iCloud, Apple Pay, Apple Music, Apple TV, the App Store, AppleCare, and more.
Apple won the services game.
But winning one game does not exempt you from asking whether the next game has started.
The next wave of AI is unlikely to live only in chat windows and productivity tools. As I wrote after SXSW, AI is beginning to get hands. It is moving from screens into the physical world: factories, warehouses, vehicles, homes, health devices, robotics, logistics systems, energy infrastructure, and wearables. The next interface may not be a prompt box. It may be a sensor, a camera, a watch, a headset, a car, a robot, or an intelligent object that understands and acts in context.
That possibility should make Apple especially interesting. If AI moves into the physical world, the winners will not only be the companies with the best models. They may be the companies that know how to integrate software, silicon, sensors, batteries, design, privacy, manufacturing, and user experience into objects people trust enough to carry, wear, and invite into their lives.
Seen that way, appointing a product engineering leader is not just a succession decision. It may be a strategic signal.
This is where my IDEAS framework becomes useful.
IDEAS Framework
The IDEAS framework is a strategy model I developed to help leaders break free from conventional thinking and generate innovative, actionable paths to growth.
The first step is Imagine. Apple must imagine the future game before the current one declines. The question is not simply, “How do we use AI to enhance the iPhone?” The question is, “What does personal technology become when AI can see, hear, infer, anticipate, and act in the physical world?” Apple already won on services. The new imagination may be around embodied intelligence.
The second step is Dissect. This means breaking apart the business model to understand where value is going to be created, captured, and defended in the future you just imagined. For years, Apple’s services strategy extended the value of its installed base. But AI may change the basis of value. Is the device still the center? Is the operating system the center? Is the assistant the center? Is trust the center? Is the ecosystem the center? Dissecting the model reveals what must remain sacred and what must become flexible.
The third step is Expand options. Strategic error often comes from asking, “Should we do this or that?” Great strategists widen the field. Apple could build AI more deeply into existing devices. It could create new wearables. It could rethink the home. It could embed intelligence into health, spatial computing, or ambient interfaces. It could partner, acquire, build, or bundle. The point is not to narrow your choices too early. It is to stay in the exploration of what is possible long enough to create a portfolio of viable options. You swarm the future with ideas before deciding which path to pursue.
The fourth step is Analyze. Here, data matters, but so does judgment, and the type of judgement that will be most valuable depends on the nature of the options (in Expand) you are likely to consider. Ternus’s intuition may be especially valuable because he comes from the world of product constraints. AI strategy cannot be only a software vision. It has to survive physics. Battery life, thermals, latency, privacy, materials, margins, and manufacturing all shape what is possible. In the physical world, strategy must pass through engineering.
The fifth step is Sell. No strategy changes the game until people believe in it. Cook sold reliability, scale, trust, and ecosystem expansion. Ternus will need to sell the next Apple story: why Apple’s future is not simply more services layered on existing hardware, but a new integration of AI and physical experience. He will need to sell it to employees, developers, investors, partners, and customers.
This is the deeper lesson.
Revisiting a decision does not mean the original decision was wrong. In many cases, the opposite is true. The decision was right enough to get you to one set all.
But that is precisely when the game starts again.
The most dangerous decisions are not the ones that failed. Failed decisions usually get our attention. The dangerous ones are the decisions that worked so well they became invisible.
That is why leaders need decision checkpoints. Not constant second-guessing. Not endless debate. But deliberate moments when they ask:
- What did we decide?
- Why did we decide it?
- What has changed?
- What have we learned?
- If we were arriving here today, would we choose this again?
If the answer is yes, recommit.
If the answer is no, change the game.
Learn how to change the game today by visiting Outthinker.com.