Elon Musk on Monday threatened Apple with legal action over alleged antitrust violations related to rankings of the Grok AI chatbot app, which is owned by his artificial intelligence startup xAI.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation. xAI will take immediate legal action,” Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X.

Apple declined to comment on Musk’s threat.

“Why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps? Are you playing politics?” Musk said in another post.

Apple last year partnered with OpenAI to integrate its ChatGPT chatbot into iPhone, iPad, Mac laptop and desktop products. Musk at the time said: “If Apple integrates OpenAI at the OS level, then Apple devices will be banned at my companies. That is an unacceptable security violation.”

Prior to his legal threats against Apple, Musk had celebrated Grok surpassing Google as the fifth top free app on the App Store. When contacted by CNBC, xAI did not immediately respond to a request for further information on a potential lawsuit.

CNBC confirmed that ChatGPT was ranked No. 1 in the top free apps section of the American iOS store, and was the only AI chatbot in Apple’s “Must-Have Apps” section. The App Store also featured a link to download OpenAI’s new flagship AI model, ChatGPT-5 at the top of its “Apps” section.

OpenAI on Thursday announced GPT-5, its latest and most advanced large-scale AI model, following xAI’s release of its newest chatbot, Grok 4, last month.

Musk has an ongoing feud with ChatGPT maker OpenAI, which he co-founded in 2015. The billionaire stepped down from its board in 2018, four years after saying that AI was “potentially more dangerous than nukes.”

He is now suing the Microsoft-backed startup, and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging they abandoned OpenAI’s founding mission to develop artificial intelligence “for the benefit of humanity broadly.”

Robert Keele, who headed the legal department at xAI, announced last week that he had left the company to spend more time with his family. In his announcement, Keele also acknowledged “daylight between our worldviews,” referring to Musk.

In response to Musk’s antitrust threats against Apple, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in an X post: “This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

This is not the first time Apple has been challenged on antitrust grounds. In a landmark case, the Department of Justice last year sued the company over charges of running an iPhone ecosystem monopoly.

In June, a panel of judges also denied an emergency application from Apple to halt the changes to its App Store resulting from a ruling that the company could no longer charge a commission on payment links inside its apps, nor tell developers how the links should look.

— CNBC’s Kif Leswing and Lora Kolodny contributed to this article.

Disney’s ESPN and Fox Corp. are teaming up to offer their upcoming direct-to-consumer streaming services as a bundle, the companies said Monday.

The move comes as media companies look to nab more consumers for their streaming alternatives, and draw them in with sports, in particular.

Last week, both companies announced additional details about the new streaming options. ESPN’s streaming service — which has the same name as the TV network — and Fox’s Fox One will each launch on Aug. 21, ahead of the college football and NFL seasons.

The bundled apps, however, will be available beginning Oct. 2 for $39.99 per month. Separately, ESPN and Fox One will cost $29.99 and $19.99 a month, respectively.

While the bundle will offer sports fans a bigger offering at a discounted rate, the streaming services are not exactly the same.

ESPN’s flagship service will be an all-in-one app that includes all of its live sports and programming from its TV networks, including ESPN2 and the SEC Network, as well as ESPN on Disney-owned ABC. The app will also have fantasy products, new betting tie-ins, studio programming and documentaries.

ESPN will also offer its app as a bundle with Disney’s other streaming services, Disney+ and Hulu, for $35.99 a month. That Disney bundle will cost a discounted $29.99 a month for the first 12 months — the same price as the stand-alone app.

Last week, ESPN further beefed up the content on its streaming app when it inked a deal with the WWE for the U.S. rights to the wrestling league’s biggest live events, including WrestleMania, the Royal Rumble and SummerSlam, beginning in 2026. The sports media giant also reached an agreement with the NFL that will see ESPN acquire the NFL Network and other media assets from the league.

The Fox One service, however, will be a bit different. Fox had been on the sidelines of direct-to-consumer streaming for years after its competitors launched their platforms. Just this year, it said it would offer all of its content — including news and entertainment — from its broadcast and pay TV networks in a streaming offering. Fox One won’t have any exclusive or original content.

Fox’s move into the direct-to-consumer streaming game — outside of its Fox Nation app and the free, ad-supported streamer Tubi — came after it abandoned its efforts to launch Venu, a joint sports streaming venture with Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery.

Both Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch and Disney CEO Bob Iger said during separate earnings calls last week that they were exploring bundling options with other services. Since Fox announced the Fox One app, Murdoch has said the company would lean into bundles with other streaming services.

“Announcing ESPN as our first bundle partner is evidence of our desire to deliver the best possible value and viewing experience to our shared customers,” said Tony Billetter, SVP of strategy and business development for FOX’s direct to consumer segment, in a release on Monday.

Nvidia and AMD have agreed to share 15% of their revenue from sales to China with the U.S. government, the White House confirmed Monday, sparking debate about whether the move could affect the chip giants’ business and whether Washington might seek similar deals.

In exchange for the revenue cut, the two semiconductor companies will receive export licenses to sell Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308 chips in China, according to the Financial Times.

“We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven’t shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide,” Nvidia said in a statement to NBC News. “America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America’s AI tech stack can be the world’s standard if we race.”

AMD said in a statement that its initial license applications to export MI308 chips to China have been approved.

The arrangement crafted by President Donald Trump’s administration is “unusual,” analysts told CNBC, but underscores his transactional nature. Meanwhile, investors see the move as broadly positive for both Nvidia and AMD, which once more secure access to the Chinese market.

Nvidia’s H20 is a chip that has been specifically created to meet export requirements to China. It was previously banned under export curbs, but the company last month said it expected to receive licenses to send the product to China.

Also in July, AMD said it would resume exports of its MI308 chips.

At the time, there was no suggestion that the resumption of sales to China would come with conditions or any kind of revenue forfeiture, and the step was celebrated by markets because of the billions of dollars worth of potential sales to China that were back on the table.

On Monday, Nvidia shares rose modestly, while AMD’s stock was up more than 2%, highlighting how investors believe the latest development is not a major negative for the companies.

“From an investor perspective, it’s still a net positive, 85% of the revenue is better than zero,” Ben Barringer, global technology analyst at Quilter Cheviot, told CNBC.

“The question will be whether Nvidia and AMD adjust their prices by 15% to account for the levy, but ultimately it’s better that they can sell into the market rather than hand the market over entirely to Huawei.”

Huawei is Nvidia and AMD’s closest Chinese rival.

Uncertainty, nevertheless, still looms for both U.S. companies over the longer term.

“In the short term, the deal gives both companies some certainties for their exports to China,’ George Chen, partner and co-chair of the digital practice at The Asia Group, told CNBC. ‘For the long term, we don’t know if the U.S. government may want to take a bigger cut from their China business especially if their sales to China keep growing.’

Multiple analysts told CNBC that the deal is “unusual,” but almost par for the course for Trump.

“It’s a good development, albeit a strange one, and feels like the sort of arrangement you might expect from President Trump, who is a deal-maker at heart. He’s willing to yield, but only if he gets something in return, and this certainly sets an unusual precedent,” Barringer said.

Neil Shah, partner at Counterpoint Research, said the revenue cut is equivalent to an “indirect tariff at source.”

Daniel Newman, CEO of The Futurum Group, also posted Sunday on X that the move is a “sort of ‘tax’ for doing business in China.”

But such deals are unlikely to be cut for other companies.

“I don’t anticipate it extending to other sectors that are just as important to the U.S. economy like software and services,” Nick Patience, practice lead for AI at The Futurum Group, told CNBC.

The U.S. sees semiconductors as a strategic technology, given they underpin so many other tools like artificial intelligence, consumer electronics and even military applications. Washington has therefore put chips under an export control regime unlike that of any other product.

“Semiconductor is a very unique business and the pay-to-play tactic may work for Nvidia and AMD because it’s very much about getting export approval from the U.S. gov,” the Asia Group’s Chen said.

“Other business like Apple and Meta can be more complicated when it comes to their business models and services for China.”

Semiconductors have become a highly sensitive geopolitical topic. Over the last two weeks, China has raised concerns about the security of Nvidia’s chips.

Late last month, Chinese regulators asked Nvidia to “clarify” reports about potential security vulnerabilities and “backdoors.” Nvidia rejected the possibility that its chips have any “backdoors” that would allow anyone to access or control them. On Sunday, Nvidia again denied that its H20 semiconductors have backdoors after accusations from a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media.

China’s state-run newspaper Global Times slammed Washington’s tactics, citing an expert.

“This approach means that the US government has repudiated its original security justification to pressure US chip makers to secure export licenses to China through economic leverage,” the Global Times article said.

The Chinese government is yet to comment on the reported revenue agreement.

Trump’s deal with Nvidia and AMD will likely stir mixed feelings in China. On the one hand, China will be unhappy with the arrangement. On the other hand, Chinese firms will likely want to get their hands on these chips to continue to advance their own AI capabilities.

“For China, it is a conundrum as they need those chips to advance their AI ambitions but also the fee to the US government could make it costlier and there is a doubt of US ‘backdoors’ considering US has agreed for chipmakers to supply,” Counterpoint Research’s Shah said.

— CNBC’s Erin Doherty contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — A top official at the Federal Reserve said Saturday that this month’s stunning, weaker-than-expected report on the U.S. job market is strengthening her belief that interest rates should be lower.

Michelle Bowman was one of two Fed officials who voted a week and a half ago in favor of cutting interest rates. Such a move could help boost the economy by making it cheaper for people to borrow money to buy a house or a car, but it could also threaten to push inflation higher.

Bowman and a fellow dissenter lost out after nine other Fed officials voted to keep interest rates steady, as the Fed has been doing all year. The Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, has been adamant that he wants to wait for more data about how President Donald Trump’s tariffs are affecting inflation before the Fed makes its next move.

At a speech during a bankers’ conference in Colorado on Saturday, Bowman said that “the latest labor market data reinforce my view” that the Fed should cut interest rates three times this year. The Fed has only three meetings left on the schedule in 2025.

The jobs report that arrived last week, only a couple of days after the Fed voted on interest rates, showed that employers hired far fewer workers last month than economists expected. It also said that hiring in prior months was much lower than initially thought.

On inflation, meanwhile, Bowman said she is getting more confident that Trump’s tariffs “will not present a persistent shock to inflation” and sees it moving closer to the Fed’s 2% target. Inflation has come down substantially since hitting a peak above 9% after the pandemic, but it has been stubbornly remaining above 2%.

The Fed’s job is to keep the job market strong, while keeping a lid on inflation. Its challenge is that it has one main tool to affect both those areas, and helping one by moving interest rates up or down often means hurting the other.

A fear is that Trump’s tariffs could box in the Federal Reserve by sticking the economy in a worst-case scenario called “stagflation,” where the economy stagnates but inflation is high. The Fed has no good tool to fix that, and it would likely have to prioritize either the job market or inflation before helping the other.

On Wall Street, expectations are that the Fed will have to cut interest rates at its next meeting in September after the U.S. jobs report came in so much below economists’ expectations.

Trump has been calling angrily for lower interest rates, often personally insulting Powell while doing so. He has the opportunity to add another person to the Fed’s board of governors after an appointee of former President Joe Biden stepped down recently.

Bed Bath & Beyond is back — kind of.

The bankrupt home goods chain is being resurrected by the owners and licensees of its intellectual property, which opened the first new Bed Bath & Beyond store in Nashville, Tennessee, on Friday with potentially dozens of more to come.

This time around, the store has a new name — Bed Bath & Beyond Home — and marks a “fresh start” for the beloved brand, said Amy Sullivan, the CEO of The Brand House Collective, the store’s operator.

“We’re proud to reintroduce one of retail’s most iconic names with the launch of Bed Bath & Beyond Home, beautifully reimagined for how families gather at home today,” Sullivan said in a news release. “With Bed Bath & Beyond Home we’re delivering on our mission to offer great brands, for any budget, in every room. It’s a powerful addition to our portfolio and a meaningful step forward in our transformation.”

In honor of the brand’s legacy, the new store will accept the brand’s famous 20% coupon, regardless of when it expired.

“We encourage guests to bring in their legacy Bed Bath & Beyond coupons which we will gladly honor,” the company said in a news release. “The coupon we all know and love is back and for those who need one, a fresh version will be waiting at the door.”

Bed Bath and Beyond 2.0 has been several years in the making and involved a rigmarole of corporate acquisitions and rebrandings. When the original Bed Bath and Beyond filed for bankruptcy in April 2023 following a string of corporate missteps, it struggled to find a buyer and ended up liquidating and selling off its business in parts. Overstock.com later bought the brand’s intellectual property, rebranded its business to Beyond Inc. and launched an online-only version of Bed Bath and Beyond.

What followed from there was a dizzying array of corporate deal-making. Ultimately, Beyond took an ownership stake in Kirkland’s Inc., a home decor chain with around 300 stores across the U.S., and gave it the exclusive license to develop and create Bed Bath & Beyond Home stores, as well as Buy Buy Baby stores.

Kirkland’s later rebranded to The Brand House Collective and plans to convert some of its existing Kirkland’s Home stores into more Bed Bath and Beyond shops. Friday’s launch in Nashville is the first of six planned for the market and, pending the results, it plans to convert around 75 additional stores through 2026.

The company said it chose Nashville for the launch because of its proximity to its corporate headquarters, which will allow it to “closely manage every detail and set the standard for future rollouts.”

While the relaunch is exciting for fans of the legacy brand, it comes at a difficult time for the home decor market. In many ways, Bed Bath & Beyond’s bankruptcy was the fault of its management team and execution missteps, but it also faced macro challenges as well, experts said at the time. Competition from players like Amazon, Walmart, Home Goods and Wayfair has made it harder for other brands to capture customer spend, and the overall sector has been soft for several years because of high interest rates and the sluggish housing market.

Even the current leaders in the home decor space have seen soft trends and it’s unlikely that will change until interest rates fall and the housing market picks back up, some analysts have said.

Apple has been sued by a Texas company that accused the iPhone maker of stealing its technology to create its lucrative mobile wallet Apple Pay.

In a complaint made public on Thursday, Fintiv said Apple Pay’s key features were based on technology developed by CorFire, which Fintiv bought in 2014, and now used in hundreds of millions of iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches and MacBooks.

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Fintiv, based in Austin, Texas, said Apple held multiple meetings in 2011 and 2012 and entered nondisclosure agreements with CorFire aimed at licensing its mobile wallet technology, to capitalize on fast-growing demand for contactless payments.

Instead, and with the help of CorFire employees it lured away, Apple used the technology and trade secrets to launch Apple Pay in the United States and dozens of other countries, beginning in 2014, the complaint said.

Fintiv also said Apple has led an informal racketeering enterprise by using Apple Pay to generate fees for credit card issuers such as Bank of America, Capital One, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, and the payment networks American Express, Mastercard and Visa.

“This is a case of corporate theft and racketeering of monumental proportions,” enabling Cupertino, California-based Apple to generate billions of dollars of revenue without paying Fintiv “a single penny,” the complaint said.

In a statement, Fintiv’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz called Apple’s conduct “one of the most egregious examples of corporate malfeasance” he has seen in 45 years of law practice.

The lawsuit in Atlanta federal court seeks compensatory and punitive damages for violations of federal and Georgia trade secrets and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO.

Apple is the only defendant. CorFire was based in Alpharetta, Georgia, an Atlanta suburb.

On August 4, a federal judge in Austin dismissed Fintiv’s related patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, four days after rejecting some of Fintiv’s claims, court records show.

Fintiv agreed to the dismissal, and plans to “appeal on the existing record,” the records show.

President Donald Trump on Thursday demanded that the CEO of the tech firm Intel resign immediately, saying he is “highly conflicted” because of alleged ties to China.

“There is no other solution to this problem,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump’s attack on the Intel chief is his latest attempt to pressure the semiconductor industry, which has fueled the boom in artificial intelligence. On Wednesday, he said he would hit imported computer chips with a 100% tariff unless companies are making them, or plan to make them, in the United States.

The demand also comes after Sen. Tom Cotton wrote to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary to “express concerns about the security and integrity of Intel’s operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security.”

Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, claims in the letter that Intel’s recently named CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, “reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Cotton asked Intel whether it had asked Tan to “divest from his positions in semiconductor firms linked to the Chinese Communist Party or the People’s Liberation Army and any other concerning entities in China that could pose a conflict of interest?”

Cotton also asked the company if it was aware of any subpoenas that Tan’s former firm received and if Tan has disclosed any other ties to China.

Intel has not responded to NBC News’ request for comment on Cotton’s letter and Trump’s social media post.

The senator’s letter cites a recent Reuters story that said Tan “has invested in hundreds of Chinese tech firms, including at least eight with links to the People’s Liberation Army, according to a Reuters review of Chinese and U.S. corporate filings.’

In March, Yeary announced that Tan had been named Intel CEO. Tan started working at the company on March 18. Tan was previously chief executive of Cadence Design Systems, an American chip design company based in California, from 2009 to 2021.

Intel’s rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor, Samsung, GlobalFoundries and Nvidia have all announced plans to invest billions of dollars in their existing U.S. chipmaking infrastructure or deepen partnerships with U.S. companies like Apple to dodge those long-promised tariffs.

Further management turmoil for Intel likely spells more trouble and delays as it continues to try to play catch up with its competitors. The company’s stock market value, just shy of $90 billion, lags far behind most of its rivals. Its stock dropped more than 2% Thursday, erasing its gains for the year and underperforming the S&P 500’s 9% gain this year.

Intel’s last CEO, Patrick Gelsinger, was forced out at the end of 2024 after the company fell behind Nvidia, AMD and other chip firms in the AI race. That came as Gelsinger sought to transform the long-struggling company by attempting to build major chip factories in the U.S.

But Intel’s debt load and the lead time that other companies already had on Intel were too much for Gelsinger to overcome.

In November, Intel received a nearly $8 billion grant under the Biden administration’s “CHIPS Act” for factory build-outs and to make secure chips for the Defense Department.

But that grant was less than Intel was originally set to receive. It was reduced because U.S. officials worried about Intel’s ability to deliver what was promised, The New York Times reported.

Mall-based teen accessories retailer Claire’s, known for helping usher millions of teens into an important rite of passage — ear piercing — but now struggling with a big debt load and changing consumer tastes, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Claire’s Holdings LLC and certain of its U.S. and Gibraltar-based subsidiaries — collectively Claire’s U.S., the operator of Claire’s and Icing stores across the United States, made the filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Wednesday. That marked the second time since 2018 and for a similar reason: high debt load and the shift among teens heading online away from physical stores.

Claire’s Chapter 11 filing follows the bankruptcies of other teen retailers including Forever 21, which filed in March for bankruptcy protection for a second time and eventually closed down its U.S. business as traffic in U.S. shopping malls fades and competition from online retailers like Amazon, Temu and Shein intensifies.

Claire’s, based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois and founded in 1974, said that its stores in North America will remain open and will continue to serve customers, while it explores all strategic alternatives. Claire’s operates more than 2,750 Claire’s stores in 17 countries throughout North America and Europe and 190 Icing stores in North America.

In a court filing, Claire’s said its assets and liabilities range between $1 billion and $10 billion.

“This decision is difficult, but a necessary one,” Chris Cramer, CEO of Claire’s, said in a press release issued Wednesday. “Increased competition, consumer spending trends and the ongoing shift away from brick-and-mortar retail, in combination with our current debt obligations and macroeconomic factors, necessitate this course of action for Claire’s and its stakeholders.”

Like many retailers, Claire’s was also struggling with higher costs tied to President Donald Trump’s tariff plans, analysts said.

Cramer said that the company remains in “active discussions” with potential strategic and financial partners. He noted that the company remains committed to serving its customers and partnering with its suppliers and landlords in other regions. Claire’s also intends to continue paying employees’ wages and benefits, and it will seek approval to use cash collateral to support its operations.

Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, a research firm, noted in a note published Wednesday Claire’s bankruptcy filing comes as “no real surprise.”

“The chain has been swamped by a cocktail of problems, both internal and external, that made it impossible to stay afloat,” he wrote.

Saunders noted that internally, Claire’s struggled with high debt levels that made its operations unstable and said the cash crunch left it with little choice but to reorganize through bankruptcy.

He also noted that tariffs have pushed costs higher, and he believed that Claire’s is not in a position to manage this latest challenge effectively.

Competition has also become sharper and more intense over recent years, with retailers like jewelry chain Lovisa offering younger shoppers a more sophisticated assortment at low prices. He also cited the growing competition with online players like Amazon.

“Reinventing will be a tall order in the present environment,” he added.

Apple CEO Tim Cook will join President Donald Trump on Wednesday for an event touting what the White House calls a new $100 billion investment commitment by the tech giant in the U.S.

The announcement in the Oval Office, set for 4:30 p.m. ET, includes Apple’s commitment to a new “American Manufacturing Program,” a White House official confirmed to CNBC.

With the new pledge, Apple’s total investment in the U.S. over the next four years now totals $600 billion, the official said.

Bloomberg first reported Apple’s new investment pledge earlier Wednesday.

The meeting comes as Trump has pushed Apple to make its products in America — a feat that experts say would jack up prices by hundreds of dollars, if it can even be done at all.

Most of Apple’s flagship iPhones have been manufactured in China, though the company is moving some of its production to India.

Trump has complained about that plan. “We’re not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves … we want you to build here,” Trump said he told Cook in May.

On Wednesday, Trump announced he will double the U.S. tariff rate on Indian goods to 50%. Trump said he was raising the tariff because of India continuing to purchase Russian oil.

Trump had exempted smartphones, chips and other tech products from his early April “reciprocal” tariff plan, which slapped a 10% baseline duty on nearly the entire world and set significantly higher rates for dozens of individual countries.

That exemption still applied as of this week, following Trump’s executive order tweaking U.S. tariffs on a slew of countries.

And it appears to remain intact in Trump’s latest order ratcheting up tariffs on imports from India.

Apple declined CNBC’s request for comment.

— CNBC’s Steve Kovach contributed to this report.

Fox Corp. will launch its direct-to-consumer streaming service, Fox One, on Aug. 21, ahead of the NFL season, the company said Tuesday.

The new streaming service will cost $19.99 per month, and pay TV subscribers will receive access for free, said CEO Lachlan Murdoch during the company’s earnings call.

Fox One will host the entirety of the Fox TV portfolio — namely, live sports such as NFL and MLB that appear on its broadcast network, as well as news programming from its Fox News and Fox Business cable TV networks.

Fox airs NFL games on Sundays during the regular season, which kicks off this year on September 4. The broadcast network also airs MLB postseason games, as well as college football, which also takes place in the fall.

However, the streaming service won’t offer any exclusive or original content, Murdoch said, adding that much of its costs will come from overhead, marketing and technology. This is in contrast to most of Fox’s competitors, which spend on additional sports rights and other content exclusive to streaming.

“It’s important to remember that our subscriber expectations or aspirations for Fox One are modest,” Murdoch said.

The company has been slower than its peers to jump into the streaming game. While it already has the Fox Nation service and Tubi, a free, ad-supported streaming app, it has yet to offer its full content slate in a direct-to-consumer offering.

Murdoch previously said the cost for the service would be “healthy and not a discounted price,” in an effort to avoid further disrupting the pay TV bundle, which has suffered continued customer losses.

Fox’s portfolio is mainly made up of sports and news content since it sold its entertainment assets to Disney in 2019. This has shielded Fox from some of the cord-cutting headwinds that have affected its media peers in recent years.

On Tuesday, Murdoch reiterated that the company will be looking to bundle Fox One with other streaming services. However, he said the company will be careful on that front, similarly so as not to cause further damage to the pay TV ecosystem.

He said Fox is mindful of two factors when it comes to bundling. First, to offer the consumer a convenient package of its content, and potentially valuable bundles. And second, to keep the service “very focused” on a “targeted audience” of those customers without pay TV subscriptions.

“Sometimes those two things conflict with each other. So we want to be very targeted, but we also want to make it easy for our consumers and our viewers to gain our content, whether it’s in conjunction with other services or not,” Murdoch said.

Earlier this year, Murdoch told investors that Fox would launch its own answer to streaming after dropping its efforts for the joint sports streaming venture, Venu.

It will be joined by a new streaming offering from Disney’s ESPN in the coming weeks. While Disney already offers the ESPN+ streaming service, the company will launch a full-service ESPN direct-to-consumer product this fall. Disney earlier said that the app will cost $29.99 a month. Disney reports its quarterly earnings on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Fox reported total revenue for its most recent quarter of $3.29 billion, up 6% from the same period last year.

While the advertising market has been weak for media companies, particularly for content outside of live sports, Fox reported its advertising revenue increased 7%. The company said this was primarily due to growth from Tubi as well as “stronger news ratings and pricing,” despite a drag from the absence of major soccer events as compared to the year-earlier quarter.