This whole article is based on the suppositions that (a) the AI bubble is going to burst and (b) it's going to take down Apple's competitors. I don't think that's a likely sequence of events.
I do think we're in something of an AI bubble, and that it will burst... but it won't burst in the sense of "All this AI stuff will go away and no one will need data centers", it will burst in the same sense that the dotcom bubble burst, or the railroad bubble burst. What happened in those cases wasn't anything remotely like "and the hyped technology became unimportant".
I think the railroad analogy is the most interesting because while a lot of railroads went under and a lot of railroad investors lost their shirts, it wasn't because railroads -- especially trans-continental railroads -- were just as huge a game-changer as everyone thought they were, it was just because the capital investment required was massive and the payback didn't come as fast as the financial structures built to fund the construction required. What happened was that those with the money snapped up the failing railroad assets and made a lot of money as the massive economic growth unleashed by the railroads was realized, over the course of a few decades.
Similarly, the dotcom bust famously left a lot of "dark fiber" laying around... but all of that fiber got lit up within a handful of years, plus we've added a ton more.
AI is looking like it will follow a similar path. It absolutely is a revolutionary technology, it will upend the structure of our economy -- even more than railroads did -- and there is a lot of money to be made. And even if AI gets much more efficient and doesn't need all of those data centers, they're still going to get used. The problem is just that some of the early investors pushed so hard trying to out-grow the competition that they've built some unsustainable financial structures, and there's a good chance that AI won't generate payback fast enough to keep those cards from tumbling down.
This probably won't be because AI doesn't advance fast enough, but because it takes time to figure out how to integrate any new technology, to make the business and even social adaptations to make use of it. I suspect those things will happen far faster then they ever have for such a large shift, because AI will actually help to accelerate them, but they still probably won't happen fast enough.
OpenAI has the most exposure. Anthropic has done a better job of figuring out how to monetize AI and is a little less exposed, though still quite exposed. I don't think Google, Amazon or Microsoft have significant exposure, mostly because they all have very large non-AI revenue streams and large piles of cash, both of which can help them survive heavy investment. For example, although Google did post its first quarterly net loss in forever, thanks to heavy data center investment, it was only a $6B loss, and for a company that would otherwise be generating $80B per quarter in net profits and has a $130B cash warchest, that's nothing.
As for Apple? Well, Apple might be able to sit cagily on the sidelines, waiting for the crash so it can use its pile of cash to snap up the assets and buy in. But it's also very possible that they're going to miss the boat. Not completely, of course, but somewhat like Microsoft missed the boat on the Internet. I do agree that really making something like the Vision Pro work really well would be huge.