Last week, in an exclusive interview with the Wall Street Journal, outgoing Apple CEO Tim Cook warned that the memory chip crunch made price increases “unavoidable.” He also made what seemed like a promise: “We’re willing to use our balance sheet to help be a part of the solution.” 

So much for that. On Thursday, Apple rammed through hefty price increases for many of its popular devices. Macs, iPads, the Vision Pro, HomePods and Apple TV products all saw price hikes ranging from 15% to over 30%. Even budget-friendly models, like the MacBook Neo and refurbished devices, weren’t exempt, though iPhones and AirPods were spared for now.

Surging memory costs and tight supplies have shattered any belief that one of the most successful tech giants would shield its customers from the wrath of RAMageddon. It’s a pattern that’s becoming increasingly common across the consumer electronics industry.

Microsoft, Motorola, Samsung and now Apple have all blamed higher component costs — driven largely by artificial intelligence data centers hogging all the available RAM — to jack up price tags for everyday people. 

That’s not to say that chipflation isn’t real. Smartphones rely on DRAM for short-term memory and NAND flash for short-term storage, both of which are also needed for data centers. As these power-hungry AI warehouses face bottlenecks processing larger, high-bandwidth workloads, chipmakers are racing to increase supply, driving prices higher across the industry.

“The unprecedented AI infrastructure growth has changed the semiconductor supply chain, driving insatiable demand,” said Neil Shah, vice president of research at the global technology research firm Counterpoint. “The situation is not bound to be better, at least for the next two years.”

Are Big Tech profits a mirage?    

After months of absorbing higher costs for memory and storage chips, which have quadrupled in price since 2025, Apple says it can no longer absorb the costs. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” a company representative told CNET via email. 

But with Big Tech sitting on some of the largest cash piles in history while reporting consistently strong profit margins, many loyal customers are pissed they’re being made to foot the bill. Or maybe millions of Americans don’t even notice because they’re too busy scraping their paychecks to cover groceries, rent, insurance and utility bills, after years of tariffs and inflation. 

On the surface, there’s rarely been a better time to be a major technology company. The Magnificent Seven, a moniker for the most dominant companies in the stock market, includes Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Nvidia, Meta and Tesla. Their massive market capitalizations have masked the otherwise decrepit state of the “regular” economy outside of Wall Street, which feels to most of us like it’s running on fumes.

Chipmaker Nvidia has become the world’s most valuable company, with a record-breaking valuation of $4.7 trillion. SpaceX’s initial public offering, which included AI developer xAI, made Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire (for a week or so, at least). AI developers such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google have raised millions of dollars in investor funding on the promise that their products will change the world.

Despite not being a major player in the AI gold rush (or perhaps because the company took a more cautious approach to AI spending), Apple maintains industry-leading margins, reporting $112 billion in net income in 2025. For the second quarter of 2026, the company reported 17% revenue growth, beating investor expectations.

Except the financial narrative around AI is starting to shift. As Big Tech sheds trillions to finance ever-larger AI server farms — and turns to debt markets to get the cash — it’s facing new skepticism. Consumers aren’t seeing a clear payoff, and investors want tangible returns. AI is increasingly looking like a gigantic money pit. 

Are price hikes really ‘unavoidable’?

Even though the silicon crunch is real, shifting the burden to consumers is a choice. If any company had the resources to ride out the chip shortage and absorb higher component costs, it’s Apple. The Cupertino company’s healthy profit margins have helped it weather supply chain disruptions and rocky economic waves better than others, even during the COVID downturn and the subsequent period of peak inflation. 

Anshel Sag of Moor Insights told CNET that Apple is simply not impervious to global market forces. Sag said he believes the tech giant held off on price hikes as long as it could, thereby gaining a short-term competitive advantage. But now things have changed. 

“We are now so deep (almost a year) into the memory shortage that all attempts to stockpile inventory or anticipate price increases have likely been exhausted, and Apple now has to raise prices,” Sag said via email. 

The question, then, is whether Apple could have chosen to absorb lower profit margins rather than pass those higher costs on to consumers. Within Silicon Valley, Apple is hardly struggling — its net profit margin stands at 27%, according to Macrotrends data. That would make these price hikes more of a calculated business decision rather than an economic inevitability. 

In a post on X, US Senator Bernie Sanders accused Cook of corporate greed, noting that the company spent $310 billion on stock buybacks, which artificially boost stock prices and benefit company execs and highly invested shareholders.

 “These price hikes aren’t unavoidable. They’re unacceptable,” Sanders said.

Are we subsidizing the AI gold rush? 

Over the last year, we’ve seen major tech conglomerates like Google, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon spend huge sums to build massive computer systems for AI. These hyperscalers paid top dollar to secure the available supply of components for their generative AI and large language models, or LLMs — which then drove up prices across the rest of the tech industry.

Apple, in the meantime, deliberately sat out the massive AI infrastructure spending race. Instead of burning cash on its own AI data centers and cloud warehouses, the company is now integrating Google Gemini models to power its AI-upgraded Siri, while continuing to rely on its own Private Cloud Compute services. At its annual WWDC event earlier this month, Apple made a renewed push into AI, unveiling its overhauled Apple Intelligence offerings.

But Apple’s initial restraint didn’t protect it from the supply chain fallout. In last week’s exclusive interview with Cook, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple had lost some of its historic buying leverage with suppliers as AI companies secured market share. Now it has to catch up. 

Cook, who is set to step down as CEO on Sept. 1, had also implied during the interview that the company could lean on its own cash reserves to secure memory supply, which could have shielded customers from price hikes. CNET asked Apple why it didn’t end up tapping its own cash reserves, but did not get a response.

“Apple is between a rock and a hard place with this situation,” Sag said. “The memory suppliers have all the leverage, and Apple’s investors wouldn’t let them eat the cost difference.” 

That leaves us, the regular folk, subsidizing soaring AI costs, even if we don’t use the technology and never asked for it. For years, Apple did fine with a subpar AI virtual assistant while Google pulled ahead. And Siri’s shortcomings, long a source of criticism for responses like “I’m sorry, I didn’t get that,” did little to dent demand for Apple products.

In fact, despite the tech industry’s continued push for ubiquitous AI, the tech just isn’t enough to entice consumers to switch: Only 11% of smartphone owners would upgrade for new AI features, according to a CNET survey. 

Will tech ever be affordable? 

Even if higher input costs justified some of Apple’s recent price increases, the markups go well beyond simply covering expenses. Take the entry-level MacBook Neo, marketed as an affordable option for students, which saw a $100 price jump just months after its launch, despite no meaningful improvements in hardware features or functionality.

As my colleague Matt Elliot pointed out, Apple seems to be using the widely reported memory shortage as a convenient cover to raise the Neo’s price. In reality, the company exhausted its initial supply of surplus smartphone processors for its budget laptop and now faces higher production costs for new A18 Pro chips. 

While the chip shortage explains some of the pressure on Apple, the company treated it like a blank check. And those massive price hikes could have consequences, including dampening buyer demand, since fewer of us can afford Apple products. Apple could also take a hit to its public image, since rising costs are likely to cement the brand’s reputation as “elitist” — though critics have made that point for years. 

Plus, the unprecedented price spike could also freak out investors — in fact, it already has. After Thursday’s price increases, Apple’s stock price plunged by over 6%, its worst single-day drop in over a year. 

Still, the tech giant is likely to conquer these hurdles without taking a major sales hit, according to Francisco Jeronimo, vice president of client devices at IDC. “Where a price rise can push a budget Android buyer in an emerging market to delay a purchase or drop to a cheaper brand,” Jeronimo said, “the typical Apple customer tends to absorb it.”

In large part, that’s because Apple has unique market power stemming from its loyal customer base. It’s developed financial resilience from that retention and a tightly integrated ecosystem. When you own an iPhone, Apple Watch, AirPods and a MacBook, abandoning one of them means disrupting your entire digital lifestyle. 

And Apple knows it. 

CNET’s Katelyn Chedraoui and Blake Stimac contributed to this story.