Apple confirmed the price adjustments in a statement to an international music industry publication, explaining that the increases were made as a result of rising licensing costs. The company did not provide further detail about the scope of the new pricing, but industry sources indicate that the higher rates are not limited to American subscribers. The publication also reported that prices have gone up in the United Kingdom and Europe, and that similar increases are expected in other countries around the world. Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from press outlets.

New US pricing at a glance

For current Apple Music subscribers in the US, the new prices are simple to summarize:

• Individual plan: $11.99 per month, up from $10.99
• Family plan: $19.99 per month, up from $16.99
• Student plan: $6.99 per month, up from $5.99

These increases come after years of stability. Apple Music launched in 2015 at $9.99 per month for individuals, and that price remained unchanged for several years. The 2022 increase took the individual plan from $9.99 to $10.99. Now, just a few years later, the same plan costs $11.99. The faster cadence of price changes reflects a broader shift in the streaming economy, where subscription costs are no longer treated as untouchable.

Apple One bundles also rise

Apple has also increased some prices for Apple One subscriptions. The Apple One Family plan, which bundles Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and iCloud+ storage, now costs $27.95 per month in the US, up from $25.95. The Premier plan, which adds News+ and Fitness+, has risen to $39.95 per month from $37.95. The individual Apple One plan remains at $19.95 per month. These bundle changes mean that Apple is not only adjusting the price of its standalone music service, but also the perceived value of its wider ecosystem subscription package.

For subscribers who use several Apple services, the bundle increases may be easier to absorb than a standalone plan hike, because the bundled services still represent a savings over subscribing to each one separately. Still, the higher bundle prices add to the total cost of staying inside Apple's ecosystem. Some users may begin to evaluate whether they actually use Apple Arcade, Apple TV+, and cloud storage enough to justify the premium.

Why prices are going up

Apple's stated reason for the increases is rising licensing costs. That phrase covers a complex web of payments that streaming services make to rights holders, including record labels, publishers, performers, and songwriters. Licensing arrangements are frequently renegotiated, and rates can rise as contracts come up for renewal. In the United States, royalty-rate proceedings have also led to changes in how much streaming services pay for songwriting rights.

The economics of streaming have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Many artists and songwriters argue that the current system does not pay them enough, while streaming companies point to the large share of revenue that goes to rights holders. Apple and its competitors operate in a market that requires continuous investment in catalog expansion, recommendation algorithms, audio quality, and exclusive content. Passing some of those costs to consumers has become a key part of maintaining healthy margins.

Historical context

Apple Music last saw a price increase in October 2022, when Apple also raised the cost of Apple TV+ and Apple One. That earlier round of increases was notable because it was one of the first times Apple had pushed prices upward on its flagship entertainment subscriptions. The company had long positioned its services as affordable and tightly integrated with its hardware, but the 2022 changes signaled that Apple was willing to adjust pricing in response to market conditions.

Now, with this new round of increases, Apple is showing that price adjustments may become a recurring part of its services business. The strategy is not unique to Apple. Other streaming services, including video platforms and music providers, have raised prices with increasing frequency as the cost of content rises. Consumers have largely accepted incremental increases, though there are signs that budget-conscious users are starting to trim their subscription lists.

A wider industry trend

The Apple Music price hike comes at a moment when the broader streaming industry is under pressure. Spotify, the largest paid music streaming service in the world, recently increased its US prices as well, with a Premium plan rising from $11.99 to $12.99 per month. That puts Spotify slightly above Apple Music in price, at least for the standard individual tier. The two companies have often competed closely on pricing, but they now seem to be moving in the same direction: upward.

In addition to music streaming, Apple is reportedly raising prices for AppleCare+ subscriptions for Macs and iPads. If those changes are confirmed, they would reinforce a pattern of Apple using its recurring service revenue to improve profit margins. AppleCare+ is an attractive source of revenue because it is tied to hardware purchases and tends to have low churn among users who want extended warranty coverage.

Separately, the music industry has seen a surprising trend: CD sales in the US have reportedly been increasing. While streaming remains the dominant way people listen to music, the modest CD revival suggests that physical media still has an audience. Some consumers enjoy collecting albums, while others are looking for a tangible connection to the music they love. The growth in CD sales is a reminder that music spending is not exclusively digital, even as subscription prices climb.

What subscribers should consider

For existing Apple Music users, the price increase may prompt a closer look at their subscription choices. Family plan subscribers, for example, are now paying $3 more per month than before, which adds up to $36 per year. Student subscribers, many of whom are particularly price-sensitive, are paying an extra $12 per year. The higher prices could lead some users to compare Apple Music with competing services, adjust their bundle tiers, or take advantage of promo offers when they appear.

Apple has not said whether its annual subscription rates, trial offers, or other promotional pricing will change. It also has not provided a timeline for subscribers in other countries beyond the already reported increases in the UK and Europe. As more regional pricing details become clear, consumers around the world will need to decide whether Apple Music still fits within their monthly entertainment budgets.

The streaming market is changing, and price increases are becoming a familiar feature. With licensing costs rising, competitive pressure intensifying, and consumers becoming more selective about their subscriptions, Apple Music is operating in a much different environment than the one in which it launched. The new prices reflect that reality. Users in the US may already be seeing the updated rates, and international subscribers will be watching for similar increases in the months ahead.

Apple Music's future will depend on whether listeners accept the higher prices as part of the cost of modern music streaming, or whether they decide to cut back on subscriptions and explore cheaper alternatives. With physical music sales rebounding and new streaming services emerging, the choices available to music fans have never been more varied.

Source: The Verge News

Action Plates is not just a simple layout tweak. It is a full customization system that lets photographers build their own shooting interface, placing frequently used tools within thumb’s reach and hiding the rest. For anyone who has ever fumbled through a menu while trying to capture a fleeting moment, this is a game-changer. The feature is designed to streamline the shooting process, ensuring that the camera works the way the photographer thinks, not the other way around.

What Are Action Plates?

At its core, Action Plates is a system of customizable button configurations within the Moment Pro Camera II viewfinder. Instead of being locked into a fixed layout, users can create multiple “plates” — essentially presets for different shooting scenarios. A photographer might have one Action Plate for street photography, with quick access to focus peaking, histogram, and exposure compensation. Another might be set up for studio work, with controls for white balance, aspect ratio, and bracketing placed front and center. The ability to switch between these plates on the fly means that the camera adapts to the situation, rather than forcing the user to adapt to the camera.

The customization goes beyond simple button placement. Users can also adjust the size, label, and even the visual style of each control. This level of granularity is rare in mobile camera apps, which typically offer only a limited set of toggles or a single “pro mode” layout. Action Plates empowers the user to build an interface that feels intuitive and efficient, reducing the number of taps and swipes needed to execute a shot. For burst shooters and event photographers, this can make the difference between capturing a decisive moment and missing it entirely.

The Return of Skeuomorphism

One of the more charming aspects of Action Plates is its embrace of skeuomorphism. In a design world dominated by flat, minimalist interfaces, the idea of making digital buttons look like physical switches or knobs might seem retro or even out of place. But Moment is betting that a little tactile familiarity can enhance the shooting experience. The new interface elements are rendered with subtle gradients, shadows, and textures that evoke the feeling of a high-end camera body. The shutter button, for instance, has a slight metallic sheen and a response curve that mimics a half-press. The exposure dial looks like it could be turned with a thumb, complete with detents and a red alignment mark.

Skeuomorphism is not just about aesthetics; it also carries a functional benefit. When digital controls resemble their real-world counterparts, users are more likely to understand their behavior without reading a manual. This is particularly valuable for photographers who are transitioning from dedicated cameras to smartphones. The muscle memory developed on a physical camera can be partially transferred to the digital interface, making the app easier to learn and use. Action Plates successfully bridges the gap between the old and new schools of camera design, and it does so without sacrificing clarity or responsiveness.

Why This Matters for Mobile Photographers

The mobile photography landscape has become incredibly competitive. Apps like Halide, Lightroom Mobile, and the native camera apps on flagship phones offer powerful manual controls and raw capture. Yet few provide the degree of interface customization that Action Plates introduces. For professionals and serious enthusiasts, the ability to tailor the shooting interface is not just a convenience; it is a workflow necessity. Every photographer has their own set of preferred tools and settings, and the fastest way to shoot is often the one that requires the least mental overhead. Action Plates allows that level of personalization, making Moment Pro Camera II a more versatile and powerful tool.

Additionally, the feature encourages experimentation. Because creating a new Action Plate is as simple as selecting a few options and saving a preset, users are more likely to try different configurations and discover new shooting styles. A person who normally shoots in full manual might find that a minimalist plate with just focus and shutter is liberating for fast street photography. Another photographer might build a plate filled with histogram, levels, and false color for precise exposure work. The possibilities are nearly endless, and that flexibility is a core strength of the feature.

How It Works in Practice

Getting started with Action Plates is straightforward. Users can begin with a default layout and then tap into edit mode to customize. From there, they can drag and drop controls onto a grid, resize them, and assign specific functions. The app supports a wide range of controls, including shutter speed, ISO, focus mode, white balance, exposure compensation, flash, timer, RAW/JPEG toggle, and even custom actions like focusing on a specific point or toggling grid lines. The interface is responsive, with real-time previews of how the layout will look and behave.

Once a plate is configured, it can be saved and given a custom name. Switching between plates is done via a small icon in the corner of the viewfinder, which opens a carousel of your presets. This quick-switch mechanism is essential for adapting to changing conditions. For example, if a photographer moves from a bright outdoor scene to a dimly lit interior, they can switch from a plate optimized for fast shutter speeds to one that prioritizes high ISO and noise reduction. The transition is smooth and does not interrupt the capture flow.

The implementation also includes a subtle but important detail: haptic feedback. The app uses the phone’s vibration motor to simulate the feel of pressing a physical button or turning a dial. This haptic response, combined with the skeuomorphic visuals, creates a surprisingly convincing illusion of working with a traditional camera. It is these small touches that differentiate Moment Pro Camera II from its competitors and make the Action Plates feature feel polished and intentional.

A New Standard for Camera Apps?

The introduction of Action Plates could very well set a new standard for mobile camera apps. As smartphone cameras continue to close the gap with dedicated cameras, the software that controls them becomes increasingly important. A camera app that is rigid and cumbersome to use undermines the hardware’s potential. By contrast, an app that adapts to the user’s preferences can unlock new levels of creativity and efficiency. Action Plates is a clear step in that direction, and it will be interesting to see whether other developers follow suit.

Of course, customization is not without its challenges. Building an interface from scratch can be intimidating for novice users. However, Moment has mitigated this by providing several well-designed default plates that can be used as-is or modified. The learning curve is gentle, and the app includes helpful tutorials that explain the function of each control. This approach ensures that both newcomers and veterans can benefit from the feature, without feeling overwhelmed by the sheer number of options.

For those who shoot exclusively in RAW, the app continues to deliver exceptional quality. The Pro Camera II app has always been praised for its accurate color reproduction and robust manual controls, and Action Plates does nothing to diminish that. Instead, it enhances the shooting experience by bringing all of those controls to the surface, exactly where the user wants them. Whether you are a professional photographer using a phone for a quick behind-the-scenes shot or a hobbyist exploring the depths of mobile photography, Action Plates offers a level of control that was previously unimaginable on a smartphone.

Moment’s decision to lean into skeuomorphism is also noteworthy, as it represents a philosophical divergence from the flat, minimal interfaces that dominate modern app design. While some may see this as backward, the company clearly understands its audience. Photographers often have an affinity for the physical craftsmanship of classic cameras, and evoking that sentiment in a digital tool is a clever way to build an emotional connection with the product. The result is an app that feels not just powerful, but also warm and inviting.

As the mobile photography ecosystem evolves, the demand for more personalized and efficient tools will only grow. Action Plates is a timely and impressive response to that demand. It demonstrates that a camera app can be both highly capable and highly adaptable, and that the interface itself can be a creative instrument. For anyone who has ever wished their phone camera worked exactly the way their mind does, Moment Pro Camera II with Action Plates is well worth exploring.

Source: The Verge News

This is not the first time that San Francisco has taken a hard line against nonconsensual intimate imagery, but it is one of the most direct actions ever aimed at the app store gatekeepers themselves. By targeting Apple and Google, the city attorney is making it clear that platform owners cannot simply rely on user reports or reactive takedowns. Instead, they are being told to take proactive steps to identify and remove apps that facilitate the creation of simulated nude images. The legal theory behind the letters is that app stores are not neutral distributors but active participants in making these tools available to millions of users.

The demand and the apps

The 13 apps named in the cease-and-desist letters are said to use generative AI to “undress” photos of real people. Some of these apps have been available on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store for months, and they often market themselves as entertainment tools or photo editing utilities. However, their core function is to create nonconsensual sexual imagery, which is illegal in many jurisdictions. San Francisco’s city attorney has asked both companies to remove the apps immediately and to take steps to prevent similar apps from appearing in the future.

A Google spokesperson said the company has already suspended the five Android apps cited in Chiu’s letter, adding that the Play Store “does not allow apps that contain sexual content.” Google’s response suggests the company is willing to act quickly when faced with legal pressure, but it also raises questions about why these apps were approved in the first place. Apple, on the other hand, has not yet issued a public statement. However, the company has previously stated that its App Store review team is committed to protecting user safety, and it has guidelines that prohibit apps with explicit sexual content or that encourage nonconsensual behavior.

The mechanics of nudify apps

“Nudify” apps have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years. Early versions of these apps were crude and easily detectable, often producing obvious artifacts that made the altered images look fake. Modern versions, however, use state-of-the-art deep learning models that can seamlessly generate nude bodies and superimpose them onto the faces of real people. The results can be so realistic that even close friends and family members may be fooled. These apps typically require only a single photo of a person, which can be taken from social media, a group photo, or even a video frame. The AI then reconstructs the person’s body and generates a nude image without their consent or knowledge.

The psychological and social damage caused by these apps is profound. Victims of AI-generated deepfake pornography often report feeling violated, humiliated, and powerless. The images can be shared widely across the internet, leading to harassment, reputational harm, and even job loss. Unlike traditional photo editing, the AI does not need to be manually guided; it can generate a realistic image in seconds. This ease of use has made nudify apps especially dangerous, as they allow anyone with a smartphone to create nonconsensual pornography.

California law and legal precedent

California has been at the forefront of the fight against nonconsensual deepfakes. In 2019, the state passed AB 602, a law that made it illegal to distribute intimate images without consent, whether they are real or computer-generated. The law also allows victims to sue the creators and distributors of such content. More recently, California lawmakers have introduced bills specifically targeting AI-generated deepfakes, including those that depict real people in sexual situations. The cease-and-desist letters from San Francisco rely on this legal framework, arguing that Apple and Google are participating in the sale of a product that violates the law.

The city attorney’s office is likely preparing to take further legal action if Apple and Google do not comply. Under California law, businesses that “aid and abet” illegal activity can be held liable for damages. By allowing nudify apps to remain on their platforms, Apple and Google could be exposed to lawsuits from victims and from the state. The letters are a warning that the city is willing to use the full extent of its authority to protect residents from AI-enabled abuse.

Platform policies under scrutiny

Both Apple and Google have long-standing policies against explicit sexual content. Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines, for example, state that apps containing “overtly sexual or pornographic material” will be rejected. Google’s Play Store similarly prohibits apps that contain or promote sexual content, including pornography and apps that can be used to create it without consent. Yet these policies have not always been effectively enforced when it comes to AI-powered nudification tools.

Some of the apps cited in the letters have been available for months, which suggests that automated review processes and manual inspections have failed to catch them. Many nudify apps hide their purpose behind vague descriptions, innocuous icons, and user agreements that claim the software is for “entertainment purposes only.” They also often operate behind paywalls, requiring users to subscribe before they can use the full range of features. This business model makes them profitable, which is why so many developers continue to produce them despite the obvious harms.

Tech platforms have increasingly been criticized for their slow response to deepfake abuse. The 2024 election season saw a surge in AI-generated fake videos and audio, prompting social media companies to adopt new labeling and removal policies. However, app stores have been slower to act, perhaps because they view themselves as infrastructure rather than content providers. The San Francisco letters could change that by forcing Apple and Google to take on a more active watchdog role.

Broader context of AI deepfakes

The demand to remove nudify apps is part of a larger global conversation about the dangers of generative AI. While AI can be used for creative and productive purposes, it also enables new forms of abuse. Deepfake pornography exploded in popularity in 2023 and 2024, with dedicated websites and messaging bots attracting millions of users. Most of the victims are women and girls, and the images often circulate on social media and adult websites. The spread of deepfake nude photos has been linked to cyberbullying, self-harm, and in some tragic cases, suicide.

Several countries have passed laws specifically addressing sexual deepfakes. The United Kingdom, for instance, made the sharing of deepfake pornography a criminal offense in early 2025. Australia has similar legislation, and the European Union is working on new AI rules that would require platforms to assess the risks of deepfake technology. In the United States, federal law is still lagging, which has led states like California, New York, and Texas to take their own action.

What’s next for app stores

The cease-and-desist letters may be just the beginning. If Apple and Google refuse to comply, San Francisco could pursue an injunction or seek financial penalties. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how app stores regulate AI-powered tools. It might also prompt other cities and states to issue similar demands, creating a patchwork of rules that tech companies must navigate.

For now, Google’s decision to suspend the five apps is a sign that at least one platform is taking the matter seriously. Apple has not yet commented, but the company’s silence is unlikely to last. The App Store has often been described as a “walled garden” where Apple maintains strict control over what users can download. That control comes with responsibility, and the city attorney is now demanding that Apple live up to it.

Developers of nudify apps may try to circumvent the takedown by re-releasing the same tools under different names or through sideloading. But the legal pressure from San Francisco makes it clear that such workarounds will be met with continued resistance. In the meantime, victims of AI-generated abuse are left waiting for meaningful protection, both from the platforms that host these tools and from the legal system that is only now beginning to catch up.

The growing availability of AI-generated nonconsensual imagery represents one of the most disturbing side effects of the generative AI boom. As the technology becomes more accessible and realistic, the potential for misuse will only increase. This latest action against Apple and Google marks a critical step toward accountability, but it is unlikely to be the last. Lawmakers, advocates, and tech companies will need to work together to develop comprehensive solutions that balance innovation with the fundamental right to personal privacy and bodily autonomy.

Source: The Verge News

The video demonstrates a core use case for the upcoming devices: using Siri as an intelligent assistant that can process visual information from the wearer’s perspective. In the clip, a Siri voice-over says, “with Visual Intelligence, your world becomes savable. See something you like? Just ask me to save it for later.” The scenario is simple—a user sees a book and wants to remember it—but the implications extend far beyond that. Visual Intelligence is a key component of Apple’s broader AI strategy, and the AirPods with cameras are expected to serve as “eyes” for the system, allowing Siri to answer questions about the user's environment, provide turn-by-turn directions, and even identify objects or landmarks.

According to earlier reporting from Bloomberg, the camera-equipped AirPods have been in development for some time, with Apple aiming to capture “visual information in low resolution” to power its AI features. The cameras are not intended for taking photos or recording videos; rather, they are designed to feed data into Siri and other machine learning models. This distinguishes them from conventional camera gadgets like smartphones or smart glasses, positioning the AirPods as a more discreet and always-on sensor for Apple’s ecosystem.

A closer look at the leaked design

The AirPods shown in the leaked video appear to be a slightly thicker version of the AirPods Pro 3, with longer stems to accommodate the embedded cameras. Bloomberg’s previous reporting predicted exactly this design, along with built-in LED lights that would indicate when data is being uploaded to the cloud. In the leaked video, the AirPods are only seen from the back, so no LED lights are visible from that angle, but the chunkier silhouette and extended stems align with earlier descriptions.

This design choice is notable because Apple has been trying to move away from the stem-style design in some of its recent patents, yet the need for camera placement and processing hardware likely forced a compromise. The longer stems provide a natural housing for camera modules and potentially additional sensors, while maintaining a familiar form factor that users have come to associate with AirPods.

The leaked video does not reveal the resolution of the cameras or their exact field of view, but the fact that Visual Intelligence can accurately read a book cover suggests the optics are at least capable of capturing legible text from a reasonable distance. This is crucial for the “savable world” concept that Apple is promoting, where users can quickly capture and store information just by looking at it and asking Siri to remember it.

Expanding Apple’s AI ecosystem

The introduction of camera-equipped AirPods would mark a significant expansion of Apple’s AI ecosystem. Currently, Visual Intelligence is available on the iPhone 15 Pro and later, integrated into the Camera app and Control Center. With the new AirPods, Apple would be bringing Visual Intelligence to a wearable device, making it accessible without requiring the user to pull out their phone.

This move aligns with Apple’s larger strategy of embedding AI into every aspect of its product lineup. The company has been investing heavily in on-device machine learning, with features like Live Text, subject removal in photos, and the new Siri powered by Apple Intelligence. By adding cameras to AirPods, Apple can extend these capabilities to a platform that users wear all day, creating a more seamless and immediate AI experience.

For example, a user walking down a street could look at a restaurant’s facade and ask Siri how crowded it is, or point at a landmark and request historical information. The AirPods could also provide real-time translation by analyzing text in the environment, such as menus or signs. Turn-by-turn navigation could be enhanced with visual cues, where the AirPods recognize the user’s surroundings and provide directions based on what they see, not just GPS.

Competition in the AI wearable market

Apple is not alone in pursuing this kind of technology. Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have already gained popularity for their ability to capture photos and videos, while also integrating an AI assistant that can answer questions based on the wearer’s perspective. However, Meta’s glasses are visibly conspicuous, featuring a noticeable camera at the corner of the frame. Apple’s approach with AirPods is markedly different, offering a form factor that is less obvious and more mainstream.

Apple is also reportedly working on its own smart glasses, which could eventually complement or replace the camera-equipped AirPods in the lineup. But the AirPods project seems to be further along, with leaked beta videos suggesting development is nearing completion. This puts Apple in a competitive position, as it can leverage its massive existing user base—many of whom already own AirPods—and gradually introduce them to wearable AI without requiring them to adopt a new category of eyeglasses.

The competition extends beyond Meta. Google has been integrating AI into its Pixel Buds and Nest devices, and Samsung has been developing AI-powered wireless earbuds as well. However, no major tech company has yet released truly camera-equipped earbuds with Visual Intelligence capabilities, giving Apple a potential first-mover advantage in this niche.

Privacy concerns and public perception

The stealthy form factor of camera-equipped AirPods raises significant privacy concerns. Unlike smart glasses, which are visibly identifiable as camera devices, AirPods are already ubiquitous and often worn by individuals solely for audio. Adding hidden cameras could exacerbate the backlash that Meta faced with its Ray-Ban glasses, which critics dubbed “pervert glasses” after the camera design made it difficult for others to tell if they were being recorded.

Apple has long positioned itself as a champion of user privacy, and the company will need to address these concerns carefully. The LED lights predicted by Bloomberg could be one solution, providing a clear visual indicator whenever the cameras are active or data is being transmitted. However, in the leaked video, no lights are visible from the back, which could mean that the indicator is either subtle, omitted, or simply not visible from that angle.

Another concern is the potential for the AirPods to capture sensitive information without the user’s explicit awareness. Siri’s voice-over in the leaked video suggests that the AirPods will continuously scan the environment in low resolution, processing data locally. Apple’s commitment to on-device processing for Apple Intelligence could mitigate some privacy risks, but the sheer amount of visual data passing through a wearable device heightens the stakes.

Launch timeline and expectations

Given that the leaked video appeared in a beta release of macOS Tahoe 26.7, a launch is likely on the horizon. The timing of the beta—released just before Apple’s annual September event—suggests that Apple is gearing up to unveil the camera-equipped AirPods alongside the next generation of iPhones. Rumors of an improved Siri have been circulating for months, with Apple expected to introduce a more conversational and context-aware version of its assistant in the fall. The camera AirPods could serve as the signature accessory for demonstrating these advanced AI capabilities.

However, it is important to note that Apple often tests features in beta software that never make it to final products. The presence of the video does not guarantee that the camera AirPods will be released this year, or even at all. But the level of polish and the specific nature of the demo—showing a fully working Visual Intelligence interaction—suggest that the product is well beyond the concept stage.

Historically, Apple has been cautious about introducing new hardware categories, preferring to refine technology until it meets its standards for reliability and user experience. The AirPods line itself went through several iterations before becoming the market leader in wireless earbuds. And the company has been exploring the intersection of wearables and AI for years, with patents filed for smart rings, smart glasses, and even neural interfaces. The camera AirPods could be the first step toward a future where standalone Apple wearables become as indispensable as the iPhone.

For now, details about the camera AirPods remain scarce. It is unclear whether they will be sold as a new high-end tier in the AirPods lineup, or if they will be positioned as a separate product category. Pricing is also unknown, but given the advanced sensors and AI capabilities, they are likely to cost more than current AirPods Pro models. Apple’s strategy may be to bundle the new AirPods with the next iPhone or offer them as an upgrade for users who want to experience Apple Intelligence in a more immersive way.

As the September event approaches, more leaks and rumors are likely to emerge, painting a clearer picture of what Apple has in store. The leaked video has already generated significant buzz, with fans and analysts eager to see if Apple can deliver on the promise of a world that is “savable” and intelligent. Whether the camera AirPods will win over consumers is another question—one that will hinge not only on functionality but also on how well Apple addresses the inevitable ethical and privacy debates.

Source: The Verge News

Key facts at a glance

• watchOS 27 has not added any new watch faces in its current form.
• Modular Ultra remains exclusive to Apple Watch Ultra models.
• Fully loaded, Modular Ultra can show six compact complications, a medium complication, and bezel data.
• A minimalist configuration with blank complication slots can create a cleaner, more balanced look.
• Apple Watch Ultra 3 is available for $699, down from $799, and refurbished Ultra 2 models are $589.

Why minimalism matters on Apple Watch

Apple Watch has always been a device that rewards restraint. Notifications, apps, and complications compete for attention. The best experience, for me, requires few notifications and intentional focus on what I want out of the device. This approach applies to Apple Watch faces too. When every slot is filled, the eye has nowhere to rest. The face becomes a dashboard of urgency rather than a useful tool. A simpler face can be read in a single glance, and that makes the watch feel faster and calmer.

Less is more has been a popular idea in design for decades, and it fits wearable technology especially well. A watch is on the wrist all day. It should not demand constant attention. By removing information that is not critical, the information that remains becomes easier to process. That is the philosophy behind the reduced Modular Ultra setup I have been using.

A more modular, less ultra version of Modular Ultra face

Modular Ultra, exclusive to Apple Watch Ultra, is one of those faces that can look super different based on how you configure it. It was introduced with the first Apple Watch Ultra, and it remains one of the most flexible faces in watchOS. The face was designed for the larger display and the flat, edge-to-edge glass of the Ultra models. It takes advantage of every corner of the screen, but it does not have to look crowded.

My approach prioritizes the time in large size with seconds visible. This is especially nice on Apple Watch Ultra 3, which always displays the seconds, including in always-on mode. The moving second hand or running seconds readout gives the watch a sense of life without requiring any additional complication. The bottom left complication is current temperature with low and high. The top right complication currently displays my activity rings, though I change this slot sometimes based on interest. I swap it out for UV index sometimes. The other four small complication slots are blank. I like the opposite corner balance and what the negative space offers.

If you want to try the same setup, start by pressing and holding the current watch face on your Apple Watch Ultra. Tap Edit, then switch to the Modular Ultra face if it is not already selected. Set the time style to large with seconds, choose Weather for the bottom left slot, and choose Activity for the top right slot. Leave the other small slots empty. The face will instantly feel lighter and more focused.

Why blank complication slots work

Leaving slots empty might seem wasteful, but it changes the entire personality of the face. The empty spaces allow the large time display to become the center of attention. They also make the two active complications stand out more. When the eye is not drawn to a grid of numbers and icons, the most important information is easier to find. The balance between the bottom left and top right corners creates a diagonal flow that feels natural. This is the kind of configuration that makes a familiar face feel new.

Apple has also made it easy to move between faces. If I want more data during a workout or on a busy day, I can switch to a fully loaded face with a swipe. The minimalist face is not a permanent commitment. It is one option in a system that supports different moods and contexts.

What Modular Ultra can do when fully loaded

As an example of what Modular Ultra is capable of displaying, I have also configured a version that shows its full capacity. It can show six compact complications, a medium complication under the smaller clock, and bezel data that can include seconds, depth, elevation, or training load. That is a huge amount of information for a single watch face. The full configuration is useful for people who need data at a glance while training, diving, hiking, or working outdoors.

• Six compact complications can display weather, timer, calendar, heart rate, activity, and more.
• A medium complication sits under the smaller clock for more detailed information.
• Bezel data can show seconds, depth, elevation, or training load around the edge of the display.
• The face can be customized further with different colors and styles.

I think it is great that the Modular Ultra face can display so much information. For my day-to-day needs, I just get more out of the toned-down version. The full face is an impressive technical demonstration, but the simplified face is a better companion. It also proves that a face does not have to be stuffed with data to be practical.

The strange red notification dot

The one weird quirk that this face has in the restrained mode is the red notification dot placement. Because it is positioned to accommodate a top-middle complication slot, the dot is not centered in how I use the watch face. That is actually just one more thing I like about the layout: it is a little weird and different. The asymmetry is noticeable, but it also gives the face character. A perfectly centered dot would be more predictable, but the off-center placement makes the face feel less generic.

This quirk is a reminder that Apple Watch faces are not just static designs. They are shaped by the options Apple provides and by the choices each person makes. The same face can look completely different from one wrist to another, and the red dot is just one example of how small details affect the overall experience.

The watchOS 27 watch face landscape

watchOS 27 may still add faces in a later update. Rumors ahead of the release pointed to a new Apple Watch face that would make clever use of the display. Other leaks suggested that an existing popular face would gain new options. Neither of those changes appears in the first version of the update, but Apple has added watch faces in point releases before. Historically, major new faces have arrived with new watchOS versions, but smaller additions have also appeared as part of bug fixes and feature improvements. That means today's news is not necessarily the final word.

Even without new faces, watchOS 27 has plenty to explore. The update includes improvements to performance, new app tools, and changes that make the Watch more useful in everyday situations. The absence of new watch faces might disappoint some people, but the existing library is deep enough to keep things interesting. Faces like Modular Ultra, Infograph, California, and Contour all offer a range of customization options.

For Apple Watch Ultra owners, Modular Ultra remains a major reason to use the larger model. It is not just a default face. It is a platform for building the exact view you want. Whether you prefer a face packed with data or a face with almost nothing on it, Modular Ultra can adapt.

Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Ultra 2 pricing

Apple Watch Ultra 3 is currently available from $699, down from the regular price of $799. That discount makes the high-end model more accessible. Apple's refurbished store also carries the Apple Watch Ultra 2 for $589. Both models support Modular Ultra and watchOS 27. The price difference matters because the two Ultra generations share many core features, while the newer model adds some improvements that are worth the extra cost for certain users.

If you are looking for a watch face that adapts to your mood, Modular Ultra is hard to beat. Whether you want every piece of data or just the essentials,

Source: 9to5Mac News

New classic movies arrive on Apple TV

This week, Apple TV significantly expanded its library with a wide range of popular films. While availability varies by region, US subscribers can now stream hits such as The Martian, Arrival, Gone Girl, The Proposal, Zodiac, and 21 Jump Street. Other notable additions reportedly include titles across genres, from sci-fi and drama to comedy and thriller.

The move effectively doubles Apple's film offerings overnight. Previously, the service relied heavily on original productions and a smaller selection of licensed titles. By adding these classic movies, Apple is giving subscribers more reasons to stay within its ecosystem rather than jumping to competitors like Netflix or Max.

Some of the newly added films have never been available on Apple TV before, giving long-time subscribers a fresh reason to browse. The service's interface makes it easy to discover these titles, with a dedicated Movies section and personalized recommendations. Apple has also been curating collections, such as David Fincher favorites and Sci-fi classics, to help viewers navigate the expanded library.

Why Apple is licensing more movies

Licensing established films is a well-worn strategy in the streaming industry. Studios like Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and NBCUniversal have all used their back catalogs to bolster their own platforms. Apple, which has traditionally focused on a smaller, prestige-driven slate, is now catching up by offering familiar favorites alongside its originals.

The selection of movies appears carefully curated. Titles like The Martian and Arrival are critically acclaimed sci-fi films that appeal to broad audiences. Gone Girl and Zodiac come from director David Fincher and have strong thriller credentials. The Proposal and 21 Jump Street add lighter comedic offerings. This mix suggests Apple is aiming to satisfy different viewer moods, from family movie nights to more serious film buffs.

Licensing also offers a cost-effective way to increase content volume without the huge budgets required for original productions. Apple has spent heavily on originals like Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon, and continues to invest in big names. But a robust library of classics helps round out the service and reduce churn, especially during months when no major original release is scheduled.

Apple's fall 2026 film lineup

Surprising as the classic movie drop may be, it is only a prelude to what Apple has planned. The streamer has six new original films set to premiere over the coming months. The schedule kicks off on September 4 with Mayday, followed by The Last First: Winter K2 on October 2, Matchbox The Movie on October 9, Tenzing on October 16, Being Heumann on November 13, and Way of the Warrior Kid on November 25.

Mayday, which kicks off the fall slate, is already generating buzz for its ensemble cast and high-stakes plot. While details remain under wraps, early reports indicate a large-scale production that could rival theatrical releases. Matchbox The Movie brings the beloved toy cars to life with a mix of live action and visual effects, aiming to capture the same magic as other toy-inspired hits. Way of the Warrior Kid, produced by Jason Momoa, is another highlight, with a coming-of-age story that has resonated with readers worldwide.

On the awards side, The Last First: Winter K2 and Tenzing both center on mountain climbing and exploration, a genre that has historically performed well with critics. Being Heumann tells the story of disability rights activist Judy Heumann and is positioned as a powerful biographical drama. These films clearly aim for festival attention and end-of-year honors.

A strategic mix of blockbusters and prestige films

Apple's fall slate demonstrates a deliberate balance. On one hand, the streamer is chasing mass-market appeal with star-driven action and adventure films. On the other, it continues to produce prestige dramas designed to generate awards buzz. This dual approach has become a hallmark of Apple's strategy, differentiating it from rivals that tend to lean one way or the other.

The inclusion of big names is also notable. Reports suggest Mayday and Way of the Warrior Kid feature well-known stars like Ryan Reynolds and John Cena, though the official cast lists have not been fully confirmed. Regardless, the projects have enough commercial appeal to potentially become breakout hits for the platform.

Apple TV's place in a crowded streaming market

Apple TV launched in November 2019 as part of Apple's push into original content. Unlike Netflix or Hulu, it did not start with a large catalog of licensed shows. Instead, Apple built its brand around high-quality originals, earning a reputation for prestige productions such as Ted Lasso, Severance, and The Morning Show.

But the streaming landscape has changed dramatically. Competitors like Disney+, Max, and Peacock offer massive libraries of both original and licensed content. To keep pace, Apple has been increasingly open to acquiring third-party movies. Earlier this year, the streamer reportedly licensed several major film franchises, and this latest batch of classics is part of that broader trend.

At $12.99 per month, Apple TV is priced competitively, and it is also available through the Apple One bundle. That bundling strategy gives Apple a unique advantage, allowing users to access music, cloud storage, and streaming in one package. Even so, content spending remains crucial, and additions like these help justify the subscription cost.

What the new movies mean for subscribers

For the average subscriber, the influx of classic movies is a clear win. Instead of turning to another service to watch a beloved film, they can now find it within Apple TV. The selection covers a wide range of eras and genres, making it easier to find something to watch on any given night.

The fall lineup also gives subscribers a reason to keep their membership active. With six new original films releasing in just three months, Apple is demonstrating a commitment to consistent content output. That is essential in an industry where viewers often subscribe for a single show and then cancel.

Apple's growing investment in film

Apple's film division has evolved significantly since its launch. Early original movies like The Banker and Greyhound were well-received but limited in scope. In 2021, CODA won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, cementing Apple's status as a serious player in the industry. Since then, the company has funded big-budget productions from renowned directors, including Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, and Matthew Vaughn.

The company has also experimented with different release strategies. Some films have had limited theatrical runs before streaming, while others have gone straight to Apple TV. This flexibility allows Apple to maximize awards exposure and subscriber growth simultaneously.

Looking ahead, Apple shows no signs of slowing down. The addition of classic movies fills a gap in its library, while the fall originals provide immediate reasons to tune in. If history is any guide, Apple will continue to adapt its strategy based on what works, and viewers will likely benefit from an ever-improving selection.

The bigger picture for streaming

The streaming industry is entering a new phase of consolidation and cost-cutting. Services are rethinking their content strategies, with many thinning their catalogs and focusing on proven hits. Apple's decision to bulk up its movie library could be seen as a counter-move, using licensed titles as a way to retain subscribers without relying solely on originals.

It also highlights a growing trend: the value of a deep catalog. Netflix famously spent years building one, while newer services are now realizing that originals alone are not enough. By adding classic films, Apple is acknowledging that content depth matters as much as flashy premieres.

For consumers, this is good news. More choices mean a better chance of finding something they want to watch, and Apple's reputation for making originals accessible to all subscribers is a plus. The new movies are available immediately, with more on the way in the coming months.

Source: 9to5Mac News

Key facts at a glance

• Apple proposes a 15% commission for standard apps that are subject to the usual 30% in-app purchase commission.
• Apple proposes a 10% commission for the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals.
• Apple proposes a 5% commission for Small Business Program apps.
• The Supreme Court denied Apple's request to pause lower-court proceedings while it reviews a related contempt issue.
• Epic responded by arguing that Apple's proposed rates fail to align with the Ninth Circuit's definition of necessary costs.

Apple submits off-App Store commission proposal

For months, Apple sought to delay the District Court proceedings that will determine what fee, if any, the company can charge for purchases made outside of the App Store's IAP system. Apple attempted to pause the proceedings while the Supreme Court considers whether Apple should be held in contempt for charging a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases. That contempt dispute stems from an injunction issued by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, which required Apple to let developers direct users to alternative purchasing methods without imposing what the court viewed as prohibitive fees.

The Supreme Court denied Apple's request to pause the lower-court proceedings, allowing the fee-setting process to move forward. Apple filed its proffer just as the denial was made public. In its submission, Apple argued that the Supreme Court's review could affect the outcome of the fee-setting proceedings and that the lower court should wait for a decision. The Supreme Court disagreed, clearing the way for the District Court to continue evaluating what Apple may charge developers for link-outs to the web.

Apple's proposed commission structure

Apple's proposal outlines a tiered fee structure based on the type of developer program and the commercial arrangement between Apple and the developer. For standard apps, which are already subject to a 30% in-app purchase commission, Apple proposes a 15% linked-out commission. For developers in the Video Partner Program, the News Partner Program, the Mini Apps Partner Program, and for subscription renewals, Apple proposes a 10% commission. For apps enrolled in the Small Business Program, Apple proposes a 5% commission.

Apple said that factual and expert evidence supporting these proposed rates was submitted at the same time as the proffer. The company argued that its proposed commissions are designed to create substantial competitive pressure on Apple's own in-app purchase system, which the court has repeatedly said is a goal of the injunction. Apple also contended that the rates would allow large numbers of U.S. developers to link out profitably, covering a significant share of App Store revenue.

Apple further claimed that its proposed linked-out commission is reasonable compensation for the value of its intellectual property, tools, technologies, and services. The company noted that the District Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly recognized that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the services it provides to developers. In Apple's view, the proposed rates are not prohibitive and do not undermine the court's directive to permit developers to steer users to outside purchasing mechanisms.

Legal background and the path to this proposal

The case began when Epic Games challenged Apple's App Store policies, including the requirement that developers use Apple's in-app purchase system for digital goods and services. After a lengthy trial, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple was not an illegal monopolist under federal antitrust law but did violate California's unfair competition law by preventing developers from telling users about cheaper purchase options outside the App Store. The court issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow external links and other communications that direct users to alternative purchasing methods.

Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the injunction but reversed the outright ban on commissions for linked-out purchases. The appellate court said that Apple could charge a commission for off-App Store purchases as long as the fee is not effectively prohibitive. That ruling set the stage for the current rate-determination proceedings, where the District Court must decide whether Apple's proposed commission is permissible.

Apple later began charging a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases, which Epic argued violated the injunction. Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt, and Apple asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court declined to pause the lower-court proceedings, meaning the rate-determination case can continue while the contempt issue is reviewed.

Apple's argument in support of the proposed rates

Apple submitted its proposal with an explanation of why the rates are appropriate. The company said expert analysis shows that large numbers of U.S. developers, representing most App Store revenue, would be able to link out profitably under the proposed fee schedule. Apple argued that this would create meaningful competitive pressure on its in-app purchase system, which the court has repeatedly identified as an important objective. Apple also said the rates allow the company to recover at least some compensation for its tools, technologies, and services, which the court and the Ninth Circuit have recognized as legitimate and procompetitive.

Apple compared its proposed commissions to those of competing app stores. The company noted that the Google Play Store charges linked-out rates of 20% for standard apps, 15% for program participants, and 10% for subscriptions. Apple pointed out that Epic agreed to those rates in its own agreements with Google. Apple's proposed rates are lower across the board, except for the 10% subscription rate, which matches Google Play's subscription rate. Apple also mentioned Samsung Galaxy Store and Amazon's Android App Marketplace as competitors with comparable commission structures.

Apple acknowledged that it still believes the rate-determination proceedings should be paused while its Supreme Court case is pending. The company said it submitted the proposal only to comply with Judge Gonzalez Rogers's instructions. Apple also noted that the Ninth Circuit had reversed the District Court's outright ban on commissions for linked-out purchases and said such commissions are problematic only if they are effectively prohibitive. Apple's filing appears designed to demonstrate that its proposed rates are reasonable and within the bounds set by the appellate court.

Epic's response

Epic Games responded quickly to Apple's filing, publishing a statement on X. Epic claimed that Apple admitted that under the Ninth Circuit's definition of necessary costs, Apple would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web. Epic noted that Apple proposed link-out fees of 15% for standard apps and 5% for Small Business Program apps. Epic believes these fees are inconsistent with the court's guidance and that Apple is attempting to preserve its monopoly over in-app payments through a new fee structure.

Epic's statement suggests that the company will continue to challenge Apple's proposal in the District Court. Epic has long argued that any commission on purchases made outside the App Store is an anticompetitive tax on transactions that do not use Apple's payment processing. The company has also argued that Apple's fees are designed to make external payment options economically unattractive for developers, even if they are technically permitted.

What happens next

With Apple's proffer now submitted, Epic will have an opportunity to respond to the proposed fee structure. The District Court will then decide whether Apple's proposed commissions comply with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. That decision will likely have significant implications for developers and for the broader app economy. If the court rejects Apple's proposed rates, it may impose a lower fee or no fee at all for off-App Store purchases. If the court accepts the rates, Apple will be permitted to charge the proposed commissions while the Supreme Court continues to review the contempt issue.

Apple is expected to file its brief in the Supreme Court by September 14. The Supreme Court's decision on the contempt issue could influence the final outcome of the rate-determination proceedings. If the Supreme Court concludes that Judge Gonzalez Rogers's injunction was overly broad or that Apple's 27% commission was permissible, the lower court's fee-setting work could be revisited. If the Supreme Court upholds the contempt finding, Apple may face additional penalties and will likely need to adjust its commission structure.

The case remains one of the most closely watched antitrust disputes in the technology industry. The outcome will affect not only Apple and Epic but also millions of developers who distribute apps through the App Store. The definition of a reasonable commission for off-App Store purchases is a novel legal question, and courts are still working to establish a clear standard. Apple's proposal is the latest attempt to define that standard in a way that preserves its revenue from the App Store while complying with judicial rulings.

Developers and industry observers will now examine the evidence Apple submitted in support of its proposed rates. The expert analysis could play a central role in the court's decision. Apple has argued that its rates are comparable to or lower than those of competing app stores, but Epic is likely to challenge that comparison by emphasizing the unique market power of the App Store and the limited alternatives available to iOS developers. The court will have to weigh these competing arguments and determine what fee, if any, is justified under the existing legal framework.

Apple's filing is the latest development in a legal battle that has already produced major rulings on app store policies, antitrust law, and the boundaries of judicial injunctions. The proceedings are expected to continue over the coming months, with both sides preparing for further litigation. The ultimate decision will shape how app stores operate in the United States and could influence similar cases around the world. Regulators and lawmakers have also been watching the case closely, and the final outcome may prompt changes to App Store policies even beyond the specific dispute between Apple and Epic.

Source: 9to5Mac News

The Apple Watch has been on a steady annual refresh cycle since its debut in 2015. Over the years, Apple has refined the design, added new health sensors, and expanded the product line into distinct tiers. The standard Series models cater to the broadest audience, while the Ultra line targets athletes, adventurers, and anyone who needs a rugged daily driver. Both lines are now expected to receive their most significant internal overhaul in several generations at next month’s event.

Apple Watch Ultra 4 and Series 12: The basics

According to the latest industry reporting, Apple will unveil two new Watch models alongside its next iPhones in September. The Apple Watch Ultra 4 will succeed the current Ultra 3, and the Apple Watch Series 12 will replace the Series 11. Both are expected to go on sale shortly after the announcement, likely with pre-orders opening the same day.

The two models serve different audiences, but they share a common platform. That means the core processor, wireless capabilities, and most health features will be identical across both lines. What separates them is the case size, materials, battery life, and the Ultra’s extra physical features like the Action button and the dual-frequency GPS.

For consumers, the September event will also bring clarity on pricing. The Series 12 is likely to start at the same $399 price point as its predecessor, while the Ultra 4 could see a modest increase if Apple introduces new materials or additional sensors. In recent years, Apple has managed to hold prices steady despite adding features, so a price jump is not guaranteed.

A long-awaited chip update

One of the most reliable rumors heading into the event is that both new Apple Watches will receive a significant processor upgrade. Current Watch models feature the S10 chip, which debuted in 2024. While Apple claimed performance improvements at launch, the real-world speed difference between the S9 and S10 has been minimal. In fact, many reviewers noted that the day-to-day experience on the Apple Watch has felt largely unchanged since the S9 arrived in 2023.

That is expected to change with the S11 chip. Reports indicate that Apple has been working on a more efficient and faster processor for its wearable line, likely to support the new Siri AI features coming in watchOS 27. With on-device language models and enhanced natural language processing, the Apple Watch will need substantially more compute power than previous generations. The S11 is positioned to deliver that, potentially bringing a noticeable boost in app launch times, smoother animations, and more responsive interactions throughout the system.

The chip upgrade is not just about speed. A more efficient processor could also improve battery life, which remains a top concern for heavy Apple Watch users. The Ultra series already offers up to 72 hours in low-power mode, but the Series 12 has always struggled to get past 18 hours of typical use. If the S11 is built on a more advanced manufacturing process, the same battery could last longer, or Apple might use the efficiency gain to power new always-on features without compromising endurance.

Design changes and materials

When it comes to the physical design, there are conflicting rumors. One report from Digitimes claims that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 is getting a “major redesign.” However, a more prominent and generally reliable reporter has said that Apple is not planning a major design overhaul until at least next year. The more conservative prediction is that this year’s models will feature subtle refinements, such as slightly adjusted case contours, new color options, and perhaps a new finish.

One possibility that has been floated is the return of a ceramic case option. Apple previously offered ceramic editions of the Apple Watch, but the material has not been used in the main lineup for several years. A ceramic case would offer a premium alternative to the aluminum, stainless steel, and titanium models currently available. It would also give buyers a lighter, scratch-resistant option that stands out from the rest of the range. While ceramic cases are typically more expensive to produce, they could be positioned as a mid-tier upgrade between the standard aluminum and the titanium Ultra.

Notably, the Apple Watch Ultra has only been available in titanium since its introduction in 2022. If Apple brings ceramic back, it could be a special edition or an additional casing choice for the Series 12. On the other hand, the Ultra 4 is more likely to stick with titanium because of its rugged credentials. Aerospace-grade titanium is both lightweight and extremely durable, making it ideal for an adventure-focused wearable. The uncertainty around materials and design will likely remain a topic of debate until the official announcement.

Health sensors and hypertension monitoring

Health tracking continues to be Apple Watch’s biggest draw, and this year’s models are expected to push further in that direction. The same Digitimes report that mentioned the redesign also claims that the Apple Watch Ultra 4 will pack “a significant upgrade to sensing functions,” potentially doubling the number of sensors in the device. While that number is likely to be an estimate, it suggests that Apple is expanding the health monitoring capabilities in a meaningful way.

Some of those new sensors could relate to hypertension detection. Apple launched hypertension notifications last year in watchOS 26, but that feature was limited to alerting users when their blood pressure readings showed signs of elevation. Now, the FDA is reportedly reviewing a new notification feature that goes further. This could provide more comprehensive guidance, such as lifestyle recommendations, medication reminders, or even early warnings about hypertensive crises.

High blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, and Apple has been working on non-invasive blood pressure monitoring for years. The ultimate goal is to offer continuous blood pressure tracking without a traditional cuff, which would be a game-changer in preventive health. However, regulatory hurdles are significant, and Apple has taken a cautious approach. The new feature being reviewed by the FDA could be a step toward that larger vision, but it may take until the September launch for the full details to emerge.

Beyond blood pressure, rumors also point to improvements in sleep apnea detection, blood oxygen monitoring, and temperature sensing. The current Apple Watch already supports sleep apnea notifications and has a temperature sensor for cycle tracking. Upgrades to these sensors could make the new watches more accurate and useful for people managing chronic conditions.

watchOS 27 and Siri AI

The hardware changes are only half the story. This year’s watchOS 27 update is expected to include a major Siri overhaul, making the assistant more conversational and capable. Apple has been investing heavily in generative AI, and the wearable platform is likely to get a version of that technology tailored to the Apple Watch’s smaller screen and limited memory.

With the S11 chip, the Apple Watch could handle more tasks on-device, which would improve privacy and reduce latency. For example, composing a quick message by voice might no longer require an internet connection, and Siri could understand complex multi-step requests like “Start a workout, then send a message to my wife when it’s done.” These kinds of features would be a major step forward for the platform, which has lagged behind other assistants in conversational ability.

watchOS 27 is also expected to bring new watch faces, better complication support, and improved integration with iPhone features like Live Activities. The combination of new hardware and new software should make the Apple Watch feel faster and more intelligent, even if the overall form factor remains familiar.

With the launch event just weeks away, we won’t have to wait long to see which of these rumors pan out. Apple could still have a few surprises up its sleeve, but the core story is clear: the next generation of Apple Watch is about smarter performance and deeper health insights, not just a fresh coat of paint.

Source: 9to5Mac News

Key facts at a glance

• Cursor Origin launched on Monday morning; GitHub suffered a major outage hours later.
• GitHub's incident lasted 6 hours 42 minutes, with 20% error rates on pull requests, issues, and API calls.
• Origin uses GitHub as the source of truth and syncs pull request comments both ways.
• Autonomous agents now open 35% of pull requests merged inside Cursor.
• Origin is enabled by default for paid users, with no published data retention or residency terms.
• SpaceX closed its Cursor acquisition on 14 August, three days before Origin shipped.

What actually broke on GitHub

GitHub's incident ran for six hours and forty-two minutes, ending at 20:22 UTC. During that window, error rates hit roughly 20 percent on pull requests, issues and the API. Archive and raw file downloads were worse, with error rates around 50 percent. Enterprise single sign-on was affected too, taking down SAML, OIDC, SCIM provisioning and Team Sync. Copilot also failed. The status page later listed it as the seventh incident in fifteen days.

The wedge is the design

Cursor Origin is not trying to force anyone off GitHub. That is its most interesting decision. After connecting an organization, users can choose repositories and see them alongside Origin-native ones. Permissions mirror the read and write settings already configured in GitHub. Push operations continue to go to GitHub, and the changelog says GitHub remains the source of truth for anything started there. Pull request comments sync back and forth within seconds.

Compatibility extends to the surrounding toolchain. Depot and Buildkite can run existing GitHub Actions workflows unchanged. Vercel handles preview deployments. The message is clear: keep GitHub if you want, but do your daily work inside Cursor.

That approach is the entire strategy. Replacing source control is one of the riskiest projects an engineering organization can attempt, and few chief technology officers would approve it for an early beta. A read-mostly mirror, on the other hand, approves itself. It costs nothing to try, leaves the source of truth untouched, and quietly moves developers into a new environment where Cursor controls more of the workflow.

The agent argument is real

Cursor first announced Origin in June at its developer conference, pitching it as a git forge for the agentic era. The launch demo showed agents running at 22.6 commits per second against a single repository. That was an impressive number, but a supporting statistic matters more: agents running autonomously in cloud machines now open 35 percent of the pull requests merged inside Cursor, according to industry reporting.

That changes what a pull request means. A forge designed for humans assumes a pull request carries human intent. Reviewers can ask the author what they meant. When a third of merged changes come from software, the review queue stops being a conversation and becomes a scheduling problem. The queue has to route work, verify behavior, and decide whether an automated change is safe without a human author in the loop.

Independent research supports the strain. The 2025 DORA report found that AI adoption correlates positively with delivery throughput but negatively with delivery stability. Stack Overflow's survey of 49,009 developers found trust in AI accuracy fell to 33 percent from 43 percent. Those numbers explain why Cursor built Origin rather than simply adding more agent features to an editor. It wants to control the entire loop where agents write, review, and merge code.

GitHub earned the opening

GitHub's outage was not an isolated event. One industry analysis counted 257 GitHub incidents between May 2025 and April 2026, 48 of them major. That is roughly one significant disruption per week. GitHub Actions alone accounted for 57 outages in twelve months.

GitHub has acknowledged the problem. Its chief technology officer, Vlad Fedorov, said the platform never anticipated its current scale. An engineering post in April conceded that GitHub had failed to meet its own reliability standards. Users have already moved. The Zig project went to Codeberg in November, and Mitchell Hashimoto announced in April that Ghostty would follow. OpenAI has reportedly begun building its own alternative partly because outages left engineers unable to commit.

GitHub has also lacked a chief executive for about a year, after Thomas Dohmke resigned. Microsoft folded the unit into its CoreAI organization. The result is a popular platform with growing reliability concerns and unclear leadership, exactly the environment Cursor Origin needs.

The question Cursor has not answered

Here is the part that deserves a security review rather than a news cycle. Cursor Origin reaches all paid plan users from Monday, except enterprise organizations whose administrators opt out. That is opt-out, not opt-in. Plenty of companies have never decided whether proprietary code may sit on a new host. Cursor has now decided for them.

Cursor has published nothing about data retention, residency, training use, subprocessors, or migration tooling. The documentation covers namespaces, plan gating, and privacy mode inheritance, then stops. Enterprises need to know where repositories are stored, who has access, and whether code samples are used to train models. Without those terms, adopting Origin means accepting unknown data handling.

The ownership context makes the silence more significant. SpaceX closed the Cursor deal on 14 August, three days before Origin shipped. Cursor now sits in a division called SpaceXAI. SpaceX made the takeover official in June at $60 billion, and regulators had already asked gun-jumping questions about the two companies working together early. Critics have noted that xAI's models and its approach to guardrails differ from what Cursor has historically stood for. One company would then control the editor where agents write code, the host where that code lives, and the model those agents run on.

One more thing on the record

Researchers at Mindgard disclosed in July that Cursor would execute a malicious git.exe placed in a Windows project root the moment a user opened the project, with no prompt. They first reported it in December. Cursor declined to patch, calling the issue out of scope under a shared responsibility model, and conceded it had not closed the loop with the researcher promptly. No CVE exists.

The same flaw class appeared in GitHub Copilot CLI, Gemini CLI, and OpenAI Codex. It is not a Cursor problem alone, but it is an awkward footnote for a product asking to hold repositories.

What would settle it

Three things would settle the debate, and none of them is the outage. First, organizations should confirm their own posture this week, because the default is on. Second, they should read the data terms when they exist and treat Origin as a convenience layer over GitHub until they do. That is already what the architecture makes it, with GitHub as the source of truth and comments syncing both ways. Third, they should ask about egress now, while the mirror is still a mirror. Cursor raised prices last month, and the properties that make Origin safe to adopt are the ones most likely to erode as Cursor's incentives shift toward owning the substrate rather than borrowing it.

Source: TNW | Artificial-intelligence News

What the autonomous agent actually did

Wiz Research, the security arm of cloud security company Wiz, operates an autonomous tool called Red Agent. Under Snowflake’s HackerOne disclosure program, Red Agent scanned Snowflake’s GitHub organization and flagged a workflow file in the public repository for Snowflake’s .NET connector.

That workflow triggered whenever anyone opened an issue on the repository. It took the issue title and passed it directly into a shell script. Because the repository was public, any account on the internet could reach the workflow by opening an issue.

The underlying problem was a classic injection vulnerability, made worse by incorrect escaping. GitHub’s template engine substituted the issue title into the script before the sanitization commands ran. As a result, a single quote in the title could break out of the shell string and execute arbitrary commands.

A guard condition appeared to restrict access. It compared a pull request property against a bot name. But on issue events, the property does not exist. GitHub evaluates missing properties as an empty string, so the comparison always returned true. Every user, including anonymous ones, could pass through.

Then comes the part that matters. Red Agent’s first exploit attempt used a hash character to comment out the rest of the line. The runner threw a syntax error. The agent read the error, concluded that the comment had swallowed a closing bracket, rewrote the payload, and tried again. The callback arrived within seconds. No human touched a keyboard.

The token that Red Agent extracted granted read access across Snowflake’s engineering, security compliance, and bug bounty projects. That token was a Jira integration credential, and it gave the agent a foothold into systems that should have been far more protected.

Snowflake patched the same day

Wiz reported the vulnerability on 23 June. Snowflake patched it that same day, restoring the safe pattern in the workflow file. The company rotated the Jira token on 24 June. According to Snowflake, audit logs matched every anomalous query to Wiz’s own test addresses. Wiz says it deleted the data it had retrieved.

“The disclosure was received on June 23, and it was immediately investigated and remediated, and our investigation found no evidence of unauthorized access,” Snowflake said. The company emphasized that the weakness lived in repository automation, not in any released connector.

The co-author line and the squash artefact

Here is where the story went off the rails. The commit that carried the vulnerable code onto the main branch lists “Copilot Autofix powered by AI” among its co-authors. Wiz read that as proof that an AI had written the vulnerable code. Its own blog post said an AI autofix commit created the injection vector. Most news coverage followed that interpretation.

Then a security publication went back and examined the commits underneath the pull request. The Copilot co-authored commit changed a different file entirely. The unsafe refactor lived in a separate commit dated 25 August 2025, attributed to a named Snowflake engineer. Squashing, a common Git practice, folds every commit in a pull request into a single entry. The co-author line came along for the ride. It records participation in the pull request, not authorship of the lines that introduced the vulnerability.

In other words, the visible commit history confused the record. The AI-assisted commit existed, but it was not the one that broke the code. The vulnerability was introduced by a human engineer, and the AI tool was merely part of the same pull request.

GitHub’s response

GitHub, which owns both GitHub and Copilot, ran an internal review and rejected Wiz’s framing. The company said a human wrote the contributions that led to the vulnerability, and that Copilot Autofix neither reviewed nor contributed to them. That is a direct contradiction of Wiz’s initial claim.

Wiz softened its own post later the same evening. An update timestamped 19:57 UTC clarified that Copilot was a co-author that checked the merged pull request and called it clear without noticing the vulnerability. Then it added the sentence that undoes the headline: “It’s unclear whether the code-change was AI-assisted.”

A technology publication had already published its initial article. By midnight, it had changed its headline from an AI breaking the code to an AI failing to detect it, and appended a correction. The story’s editor ended the correction with a line that is rare for a major technology publication: “The publication regrets this error, has updated this story to reflect the revised information, and won’t be trusting Wiz for a very long time.”

Ownership and conflict of interest

Wiz is owned by Google. GitHub and Copilot are owned by Microsoft. That pairing does not automatically make the research wrong, but it does create a commercial and competitive backdrop. A Google-owned company published a claim that a Microsoft product wrote a critical security flaw, then withdrew the load-bearing part of that claim once independent reporters checked the commit history.

The retraction does not invalidate the underlying security research. But it does raise questions about how quickly and aggressively AI attribution claims are made when the tools involved come from rival corporate ecosystems. Readers, and editors, should treat such claims with extra scrutiny.

What survives the correction

Strip out the disputed half and a genuine finding remains. An autonomous agent scanned a public repository, spotted a live injection vulnerability, wrote an exploit, hit an error, diagnosed the problem, corrected its own payload, and extracted working credentials. The vulnerability was live for five days. That was the entire window between the introduction of the flaw and Wiz’s report.

This is not a laboratory exercise. The agent operated against a real company, using a real disclosure program, and exfiltrated a real token. The same approach applied to a different target could yield far more damage.

Researchers are already tracking a curve. In July, security researchers jailbroke Copilot workflows in a way that allowed prompt injection attacks. Around the same time, a separate GitHub agent leaked private repositories from a well-known organization. Then AI-discovered vulnerabilities moved from theoretical to practical. Just a day before this Snowflake report, an agent built a working exploit for a macOS flaw in four hours.

Greg Brockman, a co-founder of OpenAI, conceded on Sunday that his company had underestimated its own models on exactly this kind of autonomous capability. The direction of travel is not in question. Autonomous agents are getting better at finding and exploiting vulnerabilities, which means defenders need to assume that every public repository is a potential target.

What remains unproven

Several parts of the story are still unestablished. There is no CVE for this issue, no CVSS score, and no entry in the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. The weakness sat entirely in repository automation, so no connector release carried it, and no public evidence points to anyone other than Wiz exploiting it.

Snowflake has not published audit logs. Neither the Jira permissions nor the workflow run logs are public. Everything about the blast radius rests on what Snowflake and Wiz say they saw. That is not the same as independent verification, and the distinction matters when a headline can move markets and reputations.

One additional detail deserves attention. GitHub published guidance in July 2025 warning exactly against the pattern that later appeared in Snowflake’s workflow. That guidance was available a month before the vulnerable commit was created. Whether anyone at Snowflake saw it is unknown, but the timing underscores how easy it is for developers to make this specific mistake.

The question that still needs an answer

The useful question is not which AI tool should be blamed. It is whether GitHub’s AI-powered review looked at this change and passed it. Wiz says it did. GitHub says Copilot Autofix never reviewed the vulnerable code at all. Those two statements cannot both be true, and only one company holds the logs that would show the truth.

Until GitHub makes those logs public, or Wiz provides more evidence, the world is left with a compelling demonstration of autonomous agent capability and a messy attribution dispute. The security lesson is clear: public repositories are ripe targets, and AI agents can move from finding a bug to exploiting it with no human intervention. The corporate blame game, meanwhile, remains unresolved.

Source: TNW | Data-security News

Every public account of this deal rests on a single word: deidentified. Because the data is stripped of personal identifiers, the argument goes, no one needs to worry. But the actual sale agreement, filed with the bankruptcy court on August 14, contains three clauses about that process that have gone largely unreported. Read together, they change what that word is worth.

Google picks the firm that does the scrubbing

News coverage has repeatedly described an independent third party cleaning the data before Google receives it. The contract is more specific — and more revealing. Spirit must deliver the material to one or more third parties “acceptable to or designated by Buyer.” In plain English, Google chooses the anonymisation agent.

Google also pays for the privilege. The agreement makes the buyer solely responsible for every cost of deidentification, and explicitly states that those costs do not reduce the $10 million purchase price. The headline price is not the full bill; it is just the starting point.

Google then gets to inspect the work. Spirit must give the buyer a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the anonymisation process, and must give good faith consideration to Google's comments. The standard is a scrub reasonably satisfactory to Google. None of this is improper — it is standard commercial drafting for an asset sale. But it is not what an independent audit sounds like.

The scrub has to keep the records linked

This is the clause that matters most, and it is the one nobody quoted. The anonymisation agent must certify the work against the California Consumer Privacy Act standard. Health-related material goes to the federal health privacy rule. Both apply whether or not those laws would otherwise reach this data, which is a real protection.

Then the sentence ends with a condition. The certification must hold “while preserving referential integrity across the data set.”

Referential integrity means the joins survive. The joins survive by design. A single pseudonymous person still runs from an email address to a support ticket, to a code commit, to a payroll record, to a booking. That is exactly what makes the archive valuable for training AI agents that complete multi-step work. It is also the property that makes any anonymisation fragile, and the contract requires it.

What is actually in the box

The schedule of Spirit Airlines data is far more specific than the summaries suggested. It lists 100 million emails across 80,000 accounts and 500 million Teams messages. Add 17,082,644 OneDrive files, 20,577,677 SharePoint files and 667,563 IT tickets. James Nani first reported the headline volumes for Bloomberg Law.

The engineering side runs to 516 repositories and roughly 30 million lines of code. It also carries 372,585 commits, 43,170 pull requests, and the pipeline logs around them. This is not just a pile of documents; it is a fully linked record of how a company built and operated its software systems.

The operational data is enormous. It covers 763,391 flights and 5,014,676 crew pairings. It holds 190,312,864 booking records and 7,510,221,520 transactions reaching back to May 2008. Disruption and reaccommodation add another 3,000,347,472 rows. This is the kind of structured, time-stamped data that machine learning models need to understand airline operations.

Then there is the corporate interior: board presentations, budget walkthroughs, deal pipelines, due diligence reports, investment committee papers, lender materials and merger fairness opinions. These are the internal documents that reveal how decisions are actually made.

And the staff

The schedule lists 175,658 employee records, with the system of record running from August 1986. It adds 3,426,618 payroll records and 148,018 employee tax forms. Then 1,092,000 time cards, training records, recruiting files and travel requests.

Roughly 17,000 people lost their jobs when Spirit stopped flying on May 2. Their correspondence, pay history and tax paperwork are now line items in a schedule attached to a bankruptcy sale motion. They signed employment contracts, not data licences. In a Chapter 11 estate, the distinction does not arise.

What Spirit kept, and what it may still sell

The schedule marks the customer side as not included throughout. The volumes are large: 97.5 million customer profiles, 50.2 million Free Spirit members, 740,000 card holders, 30,865,471 call recordings and 15,784,473 chat sessions. Regulatory records sit on the same side of the line, including 2,491,715 disability service requests, denied boarding data and complaints to the Department of Transportation.

One clause is worth reading closely. Spirit may not sell the assets to anyone but Google, with a single exception: it may sell its customer data list, including individual traveller spend aggregated by year, to buyers in the hospitality or travel industries. So this sale did not shield the passengers. It separated them. The estate kept the right to market them elsewhere. Axios reported the exclusions on Monday.

The bidding, and what it revealed

Google opened at $5 million. Mercor, an AI data company, countered at $5.2 million, then offered $7 million if it could take the raw data first and anonymise it itself, Business Insider reported. Google closed at $10 million.

A bidder priced the unscrubbed version above its own bid for the scrubbed one. Mercor, which sought a $20 billion valuation in July, remains the backup buyer at $7.5 million. The bidding war reveals how valuable the raw, fully linked data is — and why the anonymisation terms matter so much.

Google had been in diligence for a while. The agreement references a confidentiality agreement with Spirit dated June 18.

Why an airline

The value is not text to pretrain on. It is a chain of consequence. The archive connects a ticket to the emails about it, the commit that followed, the review thread and the operational result. Agents completing multi-step work need exactly that, and scraped text cannot supply it.

Google has airline-specific reasons too. Google Cloud signed a five-year partnership with Ryanair on August 12 covering fleet operations and maintenance scheduling. This purchase could feed models that help airlines optimise operations, predict maintenance needs, or handle customer service across multiple channels.

It fits a pattern. Google is in talks to pay $1.5 billion for a 35-person startup building coding environments, and China hit the same wall on training material this month. The scarcity of high-quality, action-linked data is forcing companies to buy it from unusual sources.

Meta tried collecting this kind of material from live staff and paused the programme after a revolt. An estate has nobody left to object. That is the real advantage of buying data from a bankrupt company.

What would settle it

Almost nobody can object now. The deadline for written objections passed at 4pm on August 17, and the court required anyone attending to register by 11am on August 18. Judge Sean H. Lane hears the Spirit Airlines data sale at 11am on August 19, over Zoom.

Two questions outlast it. Who audits a deidentification that the buyer designed, paid for and approved? And who buys the customer list, given the estate kept the right to sell it? The answers will determine whether this sale is truly privacy-protective or just a transfer of invisible assets.

Source: TNW | Privacy News

What was asked, and what came back

Latham & Watkins wrote to the SEC on 23 July, asking a narrow question: do data centre securitisations fall outside the Exchange Act definition of an asset-backed security? The definition matters because it triggers the risk retention rules written into Dodd-Frank after the 2008 financial crisis. Those rules require a deal sponsor to keep a portion of the credit risk on its own books, rather than transferring all of it to investors. If data centre securitisations are not considered asset-backed securities, sponsors can structure deals without that retention requirement, potentially reducing the cost of capital.

Kayla Roberts, who chairs the SEC’s Office of Structured Finance, replied on 29 July. The staff agreed with Latham’s view. That response, while technically non-binding, gives market participants a written interpretation they can rely on when designing future transactions.

The argument Latham made

The letter turns on a phrase. An asset-backed security, under the SEC’s long-standing interpretation, rests on a self-liquidating financial asset. Since 1992, the SEC has read that as an asset that converts into cash within a finite period. A mortgage qualifies because repayment extinguishes the loan. Latham argued that a data centre does not. The facilities are tangible and physical, they endure beyond the life of the securities, and they may appreciate. When the notes are repaid, the issuer still owns the building.

The firm set that against a single-asset commercial mortgage deal. In such a deal, the issuer holds only the loan and ends up with nothing once it is repaid. On that comparison, the reasoning holds together. The SEC staff accepted it.

Latham has worked on data centre securitisation since the first deal in 2018. It told the SEC that the market has since passed $50bn in cumulative debt issuance. The firm also described how the market had behaved. Participants complied with the asset-backed rules throughout, the letter says, “out of an abundance of caution” rather than because the definition required it. That careful compliance suggests that the industry was looking for a formal confirmation to unlock more flexible structures.

What the letter covers

The letter describes the securitised assets in some detail. They include buildings and data halls, electrical and backup power systems, cooling systems, network connectivity, physical security, land, and the contracts needed to run the facilities. It does not mention chips or graphics processors. That omission is significant because Nvidia’s recent financing push is tied to compute hardware, not just the physical real estate that houses it. The SEC staff response, by contrast, is limited to the real property and operational components of a data centre.

The letter also sets out the shape of these deals. Loan-to-value tops out at 70% of appraised value. Notes carry an anticipated repayment date of around five years. Final maturity runs 25 to 30 years. Nearly all use a master trust, the letter says. That structure lets sponsors issue further securities later, add data centres, and in some cases dispose of or substitute assets. Investors generally have no recourse to the sponsor or the operator. The letter records the usual exceptions as fraud, wilful misconduct and gross negligence in managing the sites.

What the letter says about itself

The SEC response sets its own limits in its own words. It reflects the views of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance, not the Commission. The Commission has “neither approved nor disapproved its content”. It is not a rule or a regulation. It has “no legal force or effect”. The staff add that their views rest on the representations in Latham’s letter, and that “any different facts or conditions might require the Division to reach a different conclusion”.

That self-limiting language is standard for SEC staff guidance, but it still carries practical weight. Market participants often treat such letters as persuasive authority, and ratings agencies may take them into account when assessing deal risk. However, the explicit caveats mean that a future fact pattern could produce a different result, particularly if the assets in question include computing equipment rather than only physical infrastructure.

What the lawyers say it means

Orion Mountainspring, a securitisation lawyer at Orrick, told reporters that the response gives sponsors something specific: the chance to push down the equity required in a deal over time. He called it good news for sponsors. The ability to reduce equity requirements can improve returns and make more deals economically viable.

B.K. Lee at Alston & Bird expects structures that are more flexible and capital-efficient, plus more deals now that the guidance exists in writing. Written guidance removes a layer of uncertainty. Lawyers can now advise clients with greater confidence that a data centre securitisation will not be reclassified as an asset-backed security subject to risk retention.

Seth Messner of Katten Muchin Rosenman told reporters what Latham had sought: it asked the SEC to put these deals outside the risk retention rules, and the SEC basically agreed. Messner was more cautious on Nvidia. It is not clear whether its agreements are designed for securitisation, he said, only that the guidance sounds applicable if they are. Katten’s data centre partners placed the rules in context. They date from after the 2008 crisis, which was triggered in part by securitisations of poorly underwritten residential mortgages. The risk retention rules were meant to align the interests of sponsors and investors by forcing sponsors to keep some skin in the game.

The SEC and multiple ratings agencies declined to comment to reporters on the letter.

Nvidia’s position, and its release cycle

Nvidia has not said whether the platforms it built with six finance giants will securitise anything. It agreed those arrangements through memoranda of understanding, which are preliminary and non-binding on many terms. Their stated purpose is to pool capital so AI labs, enterprises and cloud providers can reach compute hardware without drawing on their own balance sheets. That purpose could be served by various financing structures, not necessarily securitisation.

Nvidia has described its hardware as a revenue-generating asset, and reached for four adjectives: productive, long-lived, fungible and flexible. Those adjectives suggest a degree of predictability that could support asset-backed financing, but the SEC letter does not address hardware. It remains an open question whether the staff position would extend to compute-linked collateral, such as graphics processors themselves.

Nvidia’s release cadence is a matter of record. The company has grown by moving large customers to its newest hardware close to annually. At Computex in 2024, it shortened its release cycle from two years to one. That rapid pace creates a tension: Nvidia wants customers buying as many next-generation chips as possible, but it also wants them to know their old chips will stay valuable. If customers believe that older hardware will rapidly lose value, they may be less willing to finance long-term commitments.

The desk reported yesterday that Nvidia is backing the buildings behind an OpenAI data centre in Ohio, to the value of $105bn. That investment is in real estate and physical infrastructure, which falls squarely within the scope of the SEC staff letter. It does not involve the chips themselves, unless a future structure tries to include them.

Jeff Gundlach, a prominent investor, has said that turning compute into an asset class looks like a market top. His comment reflects broader concern that the AI infrastructure boom may be overheating, with too much capital chasing assets that could lose value quickly as technology evolves. The SEC staff letter does not address valuation or market dynamics; it only clarifies a regulatory definition.

What would settle it

Four things, all checkable, would settle the open questions. The first is whether Nvidia discloses that any of the $500bn involves securitisation. So far, the company has not said so. The second is whether the staff position ever reaches hardware rather than facilities. The letter does not address that either way, leaving room for future interpretation.

The third is whether ratings agencies treat compute-linked collateral as they treat buildings. Buildings have long-lived value and relatively stable resale markets. Graphics processors, by contrast, can become obsolete quickly as new generations are released. A ratings agency that discounts the residual value of chips would make it harder to securitise them.

The fourth is where the risk finally sits. Five tech giants already hold $1.65tn off balance sheet, and lenders already issue GPU-backed debt. That suggests the market is already moving toward asset-backed structures, even without explicit SEC guidance on hardware. The staff letter removes one regulatory obstacle for data centre real estate, but the underlying question of whether compute itself can be treated as a self-liquidating asset remains open.

Source: TNW | Nvidia News

amber connects and structures a company's internal information before any large language model touches it. That includes emails, documents, cloud apps, and business systems. The company calls this its AI Data Layer, and its own announcement makes clear that is where the money goes.

The claim is that models stopped being the contest

“The competition for models is more or less over. The quality of responses depends on the context you ingest,” co-founder and chief executive Philipp Reißel told Tech Funding News. That is a large claim, and amber attaches a number to it. Structuring data before it reaches a model cuts token costs by as much as 60%, the company says, depending on the use case. Treat the figure as the company's own. Nobody has audited it, and amber hedges it explicitly.

Others have noticed the same direction of travel. Uber's technology chief said this month that the tokenmaxxing era is ending. Microsoft has told its own staff to stop burning tokens. If frontier models converge, the money moves to whoever prepares the input.

The sovereignty pitch is the product

amber runs on German cloud infrastructure and has no American shareholders. It says that puts it outside the US Cloud Act, which lets American authorities compel US companies to produce data wherever they store it. “What's happening at amber is decided by European minds,” co-founder Bastian Maiworm told Tech Funding News.

That statement targets two rivals in particular. Glean, the Palo Alto company doing broadly the same job, hit a $7.2bn valuation last year. Microsoft is merging its Copilots into one enterprise product. Europe has spent months arguing about this. Airbus shifted its most critical applications to a French cloud. The EU's own Made in EU procurement rules do not mention software. amber sells into that gap rather than waiting for the rules to close it.

The compliance argument runs alongside it. amber pitches GDPR-compliant access to internal knowledge, which matters more to a German manufacturer than a benchmark score does.

Who is actually paying

The customer list reads as a roll call of German mid-sized industry. Ritter Sport makes chocolate. Zentis makes jam. Hailo makes ladders. Scheidt & Bachmann builds fare collection and fuelling systems, Schüßler-Plan does engineering consultancy, and Dalli makes detergents. These are Mittelstand firms, and they share a problem that is demographic rather than technological.

“It's quite difficult with large IT infrastructures to ensure that, once people retire, their knowledge remains accessible,” Maiworm said. That is the pitch in a sentence. A generation of German engineers and plant managers is leaving the workforce and taking decades of undocumented practice with it. amber promises to catch that on the way out. The company reports more than 400 active customers and roughly 60 staff, across Aachen, Cologne, and Tirana.

Founded before the wave

Reißel, Maiworm, and Igli Manaj started the company in 2021, all three connected to RWTH Aachen University. Reißel and Manaj had worked on the underlying technology before transformer models went mainstream. Maiworm brought the operator's view from a family business. The product line now runs as amberSearch, amberAI, and amberAgents, which traces the company's own path from search to assistant to agent. The next step is the hardest one.

“Today's AI tools are still waiting for users to ask the right questions,” Maiworm said in the funding announcement. amber wants software that spots what needs doing and does it.

A state bank on the cap table

NRW.Venture is not an ordinary venture investor, and it does not pretend otherwise. “Through our investment, we are supporting a start-up from North Rhine-Westphalia that is addressing a large European market and helping to strengthen the long-term competitiveness of SMEs,” said Johanna Antonie Tjaden-Schulte of NRW.BANK's managing board. Public money keeps turning up on European cap tables. When Lovable raised at $13.3bn this month, the EU became a shareholder. The scale differs by three orders of magnitude. The instinct does not.

Ventech first backed amber in March 2025 with €2.1mn and has now doubled down. Partner Nicolas Barthalon named a third problem the firm thinks amber solves: helping organisations discover and govern the right agents and workflows amid what he called accelerating AI sprawl. That is a real complaint inside large companies now. Every department buys its own tool, nobody can see the whole estate, and the person who has to govern it has no map.

What €7mn does not buy

The amber Series A does not buy a fight with Glean. A $7.2bn company and a €7mn round do not compete in any meaningful commercial sense, whatever the product overlap. amber contests a segment—German-speaking mid-market industry—rather than a market.

Refusing American shareholders also costs something. It helps when selling to a Mittelstand board worried about the Cloud Act. It narrows the capital pool at the exact moment rivals raise hundreds of millions. The founding claim stays contested, too. Frontier labs keep shipping capability gaps that show up in benchmarks, which is not what a finished contest looks like.

amber plans Benelux first, then the Nordics. The test is whether a manufacturer in Antwerp or Helsinki cares about the jurisdiction of its data as much as one in Düsseldorf does. If sovereignty travels, €7mn bought a cheap entry. If it does not, amber has built an excellent German business.

Source: TNW | Artificial-intelligence News

The AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 is one of the most anticipated technology conferences on the European calendar, dedicated to exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence, big data, and enterprise innovation. Scheduled to take place in the heart of Europe, the event is expected to attract thousands of attendees, including C-level executives, data scientists, AI engineers, IT professionals, and startup founders. As organizations across all sectors accelerate their digital transformation journeys, the expo serves as a vital platform for discovering new tools, methodologies, and partnerships that can unlock the full potential of data-driven decision-making.

The event will feature a sprawling exhibition floor with leading technology vendors, cutting-edge startups, and research institutions showcasing their latest solutions. From advanced analytics platforms to edge AI chips, the expo offers an unprecedented look at the technologies that are redefining industries such as healthcare, finance, retail, manufacturing, and logistics. In addition to the exhibition, the conference agenda includes multiple tracks, keynote presentations, panel discussions, and interactive workshops designed to provide actionable insights for both technical and business audiences.

The Growing Importance of AI and Big Data in Europe

Europe has emerged as a global hub for AI and big data innovation, driven by a combination of strong academic research, government investment, and a vibrant startup ecosystem. The European Union's Digital Decade strategy aims to ensure that 75% of European businesses adopt cloud computing, big data, and AI by 2030, with ambitious targets for public services and digital skills. The AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 will directly reflect these policy priorities, emphasizing the role of ethical, transparent, and human-centric AI in driving economic growth and social progress.

The market for AI and big data technologies is expanding at an exponential rate. According to recent industry reports, the European AI market alone is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of over 30% through 2030, with big data analytics spending expected to exceed $100 billion in the region by the end of the decade. This rapid growth is fueled by the increasing availability of massive data sets, the falling cost of computing power, and the rise of open-source frameworks that enable rapid prototyping and deployment. As a result, companies of all sizes are recognizing that the effective use of data is no longer a competitive advantage but a prerequisite for survival.

Key Themes and Topics at the Expo

The agenda for the AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 is carefully curated to address the most pressing challenges and opportunities facing enterprises today. Some of the key themes that will be explored include:

• Generative AI and Large Language Models: Sessions will examine how generative AI is transforming content creation, customer support, software development, and creative industries. Practical case studies will highlight successful deployments of LLMs in production environments, as well as strategies for managing risks related to bias, misinformation, and intellectual property.
• Data Governance and Privacy: With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the upcoming EU AI Act, organizations are under increasing pressure to ensure compliance while maximizing data utility. Experts will discuss best practices for data lineage, consent management, and anonymization techniques that balance privacy with analytical value.
• Machine Learning Operations (MLOps): As AI models move from experimentation to production, MLOps has become a critical discipline. The expo will feature dedicated tracks on model lifecycle management, continuous integration and delivery for ML, and monitoring systems that ensure model reliability and fairness.
• Edge AI and Real-Time Analytics: The shift toward processing data closer to the source is enabling new use cases in autonomous vehicles, smart factories, and remote health monitoring. Presentations will explore the architectural principles and hardware innovations that are making edge AI a reality.
• AI Ethics and Responsible AI: Panels will delve into the ethical dimensions of AI, including transparency, accountability, and the societal impact of automation. Industry leaders will share frameworks for building trust and ensuring that AI benefits all stakeholders.

Notable Speakers and Industry Leaders

One of the main draws of the AI & Big Data Expo Europe is its lineup of world-class speakers. The 2026 edition is expected to feature keynote addresses from chief AI officers, data scientists, and entrepreneurs who are at the forefront of innovation. While the full speaker list has not yet been announced, past events have included representatives from Fortune 500 companies, leading research universities, and influential technology firms. The organizers have indicated that this year's roster will place a special emphasis on practical insights and lessons learned from real-world AI deployments.

In addition to individual keynotes, the expo will host panel discussions where experts will debate the future of work in an AI-driven economy, the role of open data ecosystems, and the strategies that enterprises can adopt to scale AI initiatives from pilots to enterprise-wide transformations. Attendees will also have the opportunity to participate in Q&A sessions and network with speakers in a more intimate setting during our dedicated meet-and-greet areas.

The Exhibition Floor: A Showcase of Innovation

The exhibition floor at the AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 will be a dynamic space where over 200 exhibitors will demonstrate their latest products and services. From cloud-based data platforms to AI accelerators and visualization tools, the expo provides a comprehensive overview of the technology landscape. Startups will compete for attention in the Innovation Zone, where they will pitch their ideas to a panel of investors and industry experts. This is an excellent opportunity for attendees to discover emerging solutions that could give them a competitive edge.

Several exhibitors are expected to unveil new products at the event, making it a significant stop for technology reporters and analysts. Industry analysts predict that the 2026 expo will feature a heavy focus on generative AI capabilities integrated into enterprise software, as well as innovations in synthetic data generation and federated learning. These technologies have the potential to solve some of the most persistent challenges in the data industry, including data scarcity, privacy constraints, and interoperability.

Workshops and Interactive Sessions

In addition to keynotes and panels, the AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 will offer a rich program of hands-on workshops and tutorials. These sessions are designed to provide participants with the skills and knowledge they need to implement AI and big data solutions in their own organizations. Topics will include:

• Building and fine-tuning large language models
• Designing scalable data architectures for real-time analytics
• Implementing robust MLOps pipelines using popular frameworks
• Leveraging graph analytics and knowledge graphs
• Exploring AI-driven automation for business process optimization

Workshop leaders are selected based on their deep practical experience and their ability to explain complex concepts in an accessible manner. Whether you are a seasoned data professional or a business leader looking to understand the strategic implications of AI, these interactive sessions will provide valuable takeaways that you can apply immediately.

Networking Opportunities and Industry Connections

Networking is a core component of the AI & Big Data Expo Europe experience. The event will feature numerous networking recesses, a dedicated mobile app to facilitate meeting scheduling, and specialized networking sessions for different industries and job roles. Attendees will have the chance to connect with potential customers, partners, and employers. This is particularly valuable in the AI and data sector, where collaboration is often the key to unlocking complex problems.

For startups, the expo offers a unique opportunity to gain visibility and attract investment. The Startup Pitch Competition, which has been a highlight of previous editions, will return in 2026, with the winner receiving a cash prize and mentorship from leading venture capital firms. Many past participants have gone on to secure significant funding and partnerships as a result of their exposure at the event.

The Future of AI and Big Data in Europe

As the AI and big data landscape continues to evolve, events like the AI & Big Data Expo Europe play a crucial role in facilitating knowledge exchange and fostering a sense of community among practitioners. The 2026 edition will not only showcase the current state of technology but also provide a forward-looking perspective on the trends that will shape the next decade. With the increasing integration of AI into every aspect of business and society, the insights gained at the expo will be indispensable for anyone who wants to stay ahead of the curve.

The organizers are committed to making the event accessible and inclusive, with a strong focus on diversity and sustainability. This aligns with the broader industry movement toward responsible AI and the use of technology to address global challenges such as climate change, healthcare accessibility, and economic inequality. By bringing together diverse voices and expertise, the AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 aims to inspire a shared vision for a future where human and machine intelligence work in harmony.

Attendees are encouraged to plan their visit early, as registration is expected to be competitive. Early-bird tickets provide access to all keynotes, exhibition areas, and a selection of workshops. Sponsors and exhibitors will have the chance to secure prime locations on the show floor and to tailor their presence to maximize visibility. Whether you are attending to gain insights, launch a product, or expand your professional network, the AI & Big Data Expo Europe 2026 promises to be an unforgettable experience that will set the tone for the next wave of digital innovation in Europe and beyond.

Source: AI News News

Biosignal data refers to the physiological electrical and optical signals generated by the human body, which can be captured non-invasively by modern wearable sensors. Common examples include photoplethysmography (PPG) signals used to measure heart rate and blood oxygen saturation, electrocardiogram (ECG) signals that record the heart's electrical activity, and skin temperature readings. Samsung's new AI models are specifically designed to interpret these raw signals, filter out noise, and identify patterns that may indicate underlying health conditions or early warning signs.

Understanding Biosignal Analysis in Wearables

Wearable devices have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with sensors capable of capturing a vast amount of physiological data. However, the raw data alone is often noisy and difficult to interpret. Traditional algorithms rely on rule-based thresholds, which can miss subtle abnormalities or produce false alarms. Samsung's AI-driven approach uses deep learning models that have been trained on large datasets to recognise complex patterns in biosignals, improving both accuracy and reliability.

For instance, the AI models can analyse heart rate variability (HRV), which is the variation in time between successive heartbeats. HRV is a valuable indicator of autonomic nervous system function and stress levels. Low HRV is often associated with chronic stress, poor sleep, and increased risk of cardiovascular events. By continuously monitoring HRV and applying AI algorithms, Samsung's wearables could alert users to potential health issues before they become critical.

Similarly, the analysis of ECG signals can detect atrial fibrillation (AFib), a common heart rhythm disorder that increases the risk of stroke. While many smartwatches now offer ECG monitoring, AI-powered analysis can detect more subtle irregularities and provide more accurate diagnostics. Samsung's new models are expected to enhance the detection of AFib by learning from millions of ECG recordings, distinguishing between benign anomalies and clinically significant arrhythmias.

Samsung's Health AI Ecosystem

Samsung's announcement aligns with its broader vision of creating a connected health ecosystem. The Samsung Health platform, which already serves millions of users worldwide, will integrate these AI models directly into its mobile and wearable applications. This integration allows for real-time analysis and personalised feedback, making health monitoring more actionable for everyday users.

In addition to cardiovascular monitoring, Samsung's AI models are designed to analyse biosignals related to sleep and respiratory health. By combining acceleration data, heart rate, and oxygen saturation (SpO2) readings, the models can estimate sleep stages, detect sleep apnoea, and provide insights into sleep quality. Sleep apnoea, a condition characterised by interrupted breathing during sleep, often goes undiagnosed and can lead to serious health complications. Wearable-based detection powered by AI could encourage users to seek formal medical evaluation.

The company has also hinted at future capabilities that might include mental wellness monitoring. By analysing HRV, skin conductance, and other biosignals, AI models could infer emotional stress and provide mindfulness or breathing exercises in response. This aligns with Samsung's focus on wellness, not just fitness, and positions the brand as a holistic health partner.

The Role of AI in Clinical Validation

One of the critical challenges in wearable health technology is ensuring that the measurements are accurate enough for clinical use. AI models must be validated against gold-standard medical devices and approved by regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European CE marking. Samsung has already received regulatory clearance for some of its health features, and the new AI models are expected to undergo rigorous testing to obtain similar approvals.

Clinical validation is essential because consumers may rely on wearable data to make health decisions. False positives can cause unnecessary anxiety, while false negatives can give a false sense of security. Samsung emphasizes that its AI models are trained on diverse datasets, including data from clinical trials and partnerships with medical institutions. This helps to reduce bias and improve generalisability across different populations, ages, and health conditions.

Moreover, Samsung is not alone in this space. Companies like Apple and Google have also invested heavily in AI-powered health analytics for their wearable devices. Apple's watch has already been credited with saving lives by detecting irregular heart rhythms. Google's Fitbit is exploring sleep apnoea detection and blood oxygen monitoring. Samsung's entry further intensifies the competition in the health-focused wearable market, pushing advancements in sensor technology and AI algorithms.

Potential Benefits for Personalised Healthcare

The integration of AI into wearable biosignal analysis has the potential to democratise healthcare. Instead of relying solely on periodic visits to a doctor, individuals can monitor their health continuously from home and share valuable data with healthcare providers. This shift towards personalised healthcare could enable earlier interventions, improved management of chronic diseases, and more efficient use of medical resources.

For example, patients with hypertension could track their blood pressure and heart rate trends, with AI providing insights into how lifestyle changes affect their readings. Diabetics could benefit from glucose monitoring combined with heart rate data to understand how exercise and stress impact their blood sugar levels. The ability to collect long-term data also helps physicians make more informed treatment decisions.

Samsung's AI models could also play a role in remote patient monitoring, particularly for elderly individuals who prefer to live independently. Wearables equipped with fall detection, heart rate monitoring, and AI-powered anomaly detection can alert caregivers or emergency services in case of an incident. This not only improves safety but also reduces the burden on healthcare systems.

Privacy and Ethical Considerations

As wearable biosignal data becomes more detailed and AI models become more powerful, privacy concerns inevitably arise. Samsung has stated its commitment to data security, using on-device processing where possible to keep sensitive health information local. However, the full capabilities of cloud-based AI analysis often require sending anonymised data to servers for training and improvement. Users should be aware of the trade-offs and have clear control over their data sharing preferences.

The ethical use of AI in healthcare also extends to algorithmic fairness. If training data are skewed towards certain demographics, the AI models might perform less well for others. Samsung must ensure that its models are tested across various ethnicities, genders, and age groups to avoid exacerbating health disparities. Transparency in how the models make decisions, as well as their limitations, will be crucial in building trust with consumers and the medical community.

Regulatory compliance is another important factor. With the introduction of stricter data protection laws such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar laws in other jurisdictions, Samsung must navigate a complex legal landscape. Health data is considered sensitive personal information, and any processing—especially by AI algorithms—must adhere to strict guidelines to ensure user consent and data integrity.

The Future of Samsung's Wearable AI

Looking ahead, Samsung is expected to continue expanding its AI capabilities and integrating them into a wider range of products. In addition to its Galaxy Watch series and Galaxy Fit bands, the company might extend biosignal analysis to other devices like earbuds, which can potentially measure heart rate and body temperature. The vision is a seamlessly connected ecosystem where multiple devices contribute to a comprehensive picture of the user's health.

Samsung is also likely to invest in the development of new sensors, such as non-invasive continuous glucose monitoring and blood pressure monitoring, which would require sophisticated AI to interpret. These technologies are currently in the research phase but could be commercialised within the next few years, fundamentally changing the management of chronic diseases like diabetes.

Moreover, the integration of generative AI could provide users with natural-language explanations of their health trends, making the insights more accessible to non-experts. Instead of merely displaying a chart, the Samsung Health app might explain that your sleep quality was lower this week due to increased stress and suggest actionable recommendations. This would mark a shift from passive data collection to an intelligent, interactive health advisor.

Industry Impact and Reactions

The announcement has generated significant interest in the health tech industry. Analysts believe that Samsung's move further validates the role of AI in consumer health devices, potentially driving more widespread adoption. By making advanced biosignal analysis available to a broader audience, Samsung is contributing to the growing movement of preventive medicine, where early detection and lifestyle intervention play a central role.

Healthcare providers are cautiously optimistic. While they recognise the potential benefits, they also warn about the need for proper clinical validation and education. Wearables are not a substitute for professional medical advice, but they can serve as a valuable complement. The collaboration between technology companies and health systems is likely to grow, with more providers willing to accept wearable data as part of patient consultations.

Consumers, on the other hand, are increasingly expecting their devices to do more than count steps. The demand for meaningful health insights is on the rise, and Samsung's latest AI models cater to this demand. As the technology matures and becomes more accurate, it will be interesting to see how it shapes the relationship between individuals and their own health.

In summary, Samsung's AI-powered biosignal analysis represents a milestone in the evolution of wearable health technology. By combining advanced sensors, deep learning, and trusted distribution channels, the company is poised to make a significant impact on how we monitor and understand our bodies. The future of healthcare is becoming more digital, personal, and preventive, and Samsung is clearly positioning itself at the forefront of this transformation.

Source: AI News News

Best E Ink tablets for 2026

Best E Ink tablet for most people: reMarkable 2

Screen size: 10.3-inch | Battery life: Two weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi | Capacity: 8GB | Included stylus: No, extra cost | Supported file types: PDF, EPUB

The reMarkable 2 is the best all-around E Ink tablet because it balances writing quality, reading features, and ease of use better than any other device we tested. It has a 10.3-inch monochrome display and weighs under a pound, making it one of the sleekest and most portable E Ink tablets available. The design is refined, with beige bezels and a slim silver edge for attaching accessories like the folio case and Type Folio keyboard.

The writing experience is outstanding. The optional Marker Plus includes a built-in eraser, while the standard Marker is also tilt- and pressure-sensitive. Both pens require no batteries and there is little to no lag when writing. The display refreshes quickly and feels close to real paper. In our testing, almost every E Ink tablet has low latency, but the reMarkable 2 still stands out for its natural feel.

For reading, the reMarkable 2 supports PDF and EPUB files. Users can add files through the desktop app, mobile app, or by connecting Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, or Dropbox. The Read with reMarkable Chrome extension is another convenient way to send online articles to the tablet, either as text-only files or PDFs. Marking up documents and articles is straightforward, with eight brush types, adjustable line thickness, and the ability to convert handwritten notes into typed text.

The main downside is the price. The tablet costs $399 with the standard Marker, or $449 with the Marker Plus. A reMarkable Connect subscription, which adds unlimited cloud storage and mobile app editing, costs $3 per month or $30 per year. New buyers get a one-year trial. Still, for those seeking a dedicated writing tablet that is simple to use, the reMarkable 2 remains the best choice for most people.

• Pros: Great reading and writing experience; Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive and Dropbox support; easy to use
• Cons: Marker costs extra; expensive; unlimited cloud storage comes with a subscription cost

Best premium E Ink tablet: reMarkable Paper Pro

Screen size: 11.8-inch | Battery life: Two weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi | Capacity: 64GB | Included stylus: No, extra cost | Supported file types: PDF, EPUB

The reMarkable Paper Pro takes everything great about the reMarkable 2 and adds a larger 11.8-inch color display, faster performance, and a more premium design. It uses a modified version of E Ink's Gallery 3 technology called Canvas Color, which can display 20,000 colors. The color screen is useful for highlighting, annotating, and organizing notes in a way that monochrome tablets cannot match.

The Paper Pro is powered by a 1.8GHz quad-core processor with 2GB of RAM and 64GB of storage. These upgrades are noticeable: page refreshes are quicker, transitions are smoother, and pen latency is just 12ms. The design is also elegant, with a 5.1mm-thick body and grooved edges that make it feel like a luxury legal pad. It comes with a backlight, so you can write in the dark, and the color display lets you use multiple colored pens and highlighters in notes.

Software remains simple and distraction-free, just like the reMarkable 2. The tablet is designed for focused writing and reading rather than endless app notifications. The optional Connect subscription is still required for unlimited cloud storage and syncing, but the device's 64GB of internal storage may be enough for many users. At $629 for the base bundle, the Paper Pro is an investment. However, for those who want the best writing experience in a premium package, it delivers.

• Pros: Color is a welcome and useful addition; backlight lets you work in dark environments; vastly improved performance
• Cons: Expensive

Best e-reader E Ink tablet: Amazon Kindle Scribe

Screen size: 11-inch | Battery life: Months | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Capacity: Up to 64GB | Included stylus: Yes | Supported file types: AZW3, AZW, TXT, PDF, unprotected MOBI, PRC natively and more

The latest Amazon Kindle Scribe improves on an already strong formula. It has a larger 11-inch screen with slim, uniform bezels, a faster processor, and an improved front light system. The included stylus feels comfortable to hold and magnetically attaches to the side of the tablet. Writing latencies are even lower than before, making the device feel snappy when taking notes or marking up documents.

For Kindle users, the Scribe seamlessly integrates with your existing library. You can underline, highlight in gray, and add sticky notes to Kindle books. The ability to mark up text depends on the book, but the experience is still convenient for readers who want to annotate while reading. The new Home page provides quick access to Quick Notes and recently opened titles, though Amazon also fills it with book recommendations.

The Scribe also includes an AI Search feature that attempts to find, summarize, and provide insights about handwritten notes. In testing, this feature was somewhat inconsistent, but it could be useful for students or note-takers who want AI help synthesizing information. The base Scribe costs $430, but that model lacks a front light. We recommend the $500 model with the improved lighting system. There is also a $630 Scribe Colorsoft with a color display.

• Pros: Fast, smooth performance; low-latency writing experience; seamlessly integrates with Kindle books; premium pen included in cost
• Cons: AI Search could use some work; marking up Kindle books is an inconsistent experience

Best E Ink tablet for writing and note-taking: Supernote A6 X2

Screen size: 7.8-inch | Battery life: Weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Capacity: 32GB, expandable up to 2TB with microSD card | Included stylus: No, extra cost | Supported file types: PDF, EPUB, Word, Text (.txt), PNG, JPG, Comic book archive (.cbz), FictionBook2 (.fb2) and OpenXPS (.xps)

The Supernote A6 X2, also called the Nomad, is designed for people who are serious about digital note-taking. Its 7.8-inch screen is smaller than most E Ink tablets, making it highly portable and comfortable to use like a pocket notebook. The FeelWrite 2 screen protector feels smooth and paper-like, and the device supports a wide range of file formats, including PDF, EPUB, Word, PNG, and JPG.

What makes the Supernote special is its powerful note organization software. You can lasso handwritten words, convert them to typed text, and turn them into keywords for quick access later. The tablet also lets you bookmark titles, add stars to pages, and create custom notebooks using built-in templates or downloaded planner files. The Manta A5 X2, a larger 10.7-inch version, is also available for those who want more screen space.

The Supernote A6 X2 runs a simple Linux-based operating system with its own app store. The Kindle app and Atelier painting app are available, but the device is best for writing and note-taking rather than reading or browsing. It has no backlight, and the stylus costs extra, which can push the price above $400. Still, for notebook enthusiasts who want deep customization and excellent handwriting recognition, the Supernote is unmatched.

• Pros: Excellent writing experience; tons of notebook customization options; good handwriting recognition
• Cons: Pen comes at an added cost; no backlight

Another color-display option: Onyx Boox Note Air4 C

Screen size: 10.3-inch | Battery life: Weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Capacity: 64GB | Included stylus: Yes | Supported file types: PDF, PPT, EPUB, TXT, DJVU, HTML, RTF, FB2, DOC, MOBI, CHM, PNG, JPG, TIFF, BMP

The Onyx Boox Note Air4 C is a 10.3-inch color E Ink tablet that runs Android 13. Because it has the Google Play Store, you can download apps like Kindle, Kobo, and even web browsers. This makes it the most versatile E Ink tablet on our list. It also includes a stylus in the box, which adds to its value.

The writing experience is excellent, with low latency and a variety of brush options in the Notebook app. The color display allows you to create colored sticky notes, shapes, and highlights. A useful feature is the ability to save multiple brushes with different colors and line thicknesses, then switch between them quickly. The AI recognition tool converts handwritten pages to typed text with good accuracy, although it struggles with some symbols.

The Note Air4 C supports many ways to add files, including Google Drive, Dropbox, and direct USB transfer. You can also export notes as PDF or PNG files. Because it is a full Android tablet, it can do almost anything a standard tablet can, but the E Ink screen is still best for reading and writing. The $529 bundle includes the tablet, stylus, and folio case, which is competitive for a color E Ink device with Android capabilities.

• Pros: Color E Ink display; runs Android 13 with access to Google Play Store; supports many ways to add files to the device; stylus included in the box
• Cons: E Ink screen hinders it from being a good video-consumption device; not as user-friendly as others; on the expensive side

A big-screen option: Onyx Boox Note Max

Screen size: 13.3-inch | Battery life: Weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Capacity: 128GB | Included stylus: Yes | Supported file types: PDF, PPT, EPUB, TXT, DJVU, HTML, RTF, FB2, DOC, MOBI, CHM, PNG, JPG, TIFF, BMP

The Onyx Boox Note Max is the ultimate large-screen E Ink tablet. It features a 13.3-inch Carta 1300 display with 300 dpi, which is incredibly sharp for reading and writing. If you like A4-sized notebooks or legal pads, the Note Max offers a vast canvas for doodles, notes, and documents. It runs Android 13, so you have access to the Google Play Store and can use apps just like on a standard tablet.

One standout feature is the Calendar Memo app. It displays a month view, and you can tap on any day to write notes, journal entries, or to-do lists. The app also keeps a log of the books and documents you read each day when using Boox's native e-reader, giving you a handy progress tracker. The huge screen makes reviewing all this information easy.

The Note Max costs $689, but it includes a stylus and protective cover. That is a premium price, but for workers, students, or creatives who need a large digital notebook, the Note Max is worth considering. It has no front light, so it is best used in well-lit environments. It is also not as user-friendly for beginners, but advanced users will enjoy the flexibility of Android on a large E Ink display.

• Pros: Sharp E Ink Carta 1300 display; luxe 13.3-inch screen size; runs Android 13 with access to the Google Play Store; comes with an included stylus and cover
• Cons: No front light; not as user-friendly as other options; expensive

Honorable mention: reMarkable Paper Pro Move

Screen size: 7.3-inch | Battery life: Two weeks | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi | Capacity: 64GB | Included stylus: Yes | Supported file types: PDF, EPUB

The reMarkable Paper Pro Move is a smaller, more portable version of the Paper Pro. It has a 7.3-inch Canvas Color display, making it similar in size to the Supernote Nomad. The hardware is premium, with ridged edges and a comfortable stylus that attaches magnetically. It is great for on-the-go note-taking and document markup, with the same streamlined software as the larger Paper Pro.

The Paper Pro Move costs $449 with the standard Marker, which is cheaper than the full-sized Paper Pro. It also includes a stylus in the box. However, there is no keyboard folio option, and the small screen limits how much content you can see at once. For those who want a compact, high-quality E Ink tablet, this is a solid option.

Honorable mention: Kobo Libra Colour

Screen size: 7-inch | Battery life: Up to 40 days | Network connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Capacity: 32GB | Included stylus: No | Supported file types: EPUB, EPUB3, FlePub, PDF, MOBI, JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP, TIFF, TXT, HTML, RTF, CBZ, CBR, Kobo audiobooks

The Kobo Libra Colour combines a color E Ink screen with stylus support, making it a great ereader and note-taking device. It has a 7-inch display with adjustable warm light, physical page-turn buttons, and a fast processor. The color screen is perfect for highlighting text in multiple hues, and the stylus lets you write in the margins of any ebook. It also supports Dropbox and Google Drive integration.

The stylus is sold separately for about $70, bringing the total price to around $300. That is still cheaper than the base Kindle Scribe, but the screen is smaller. If you are already invested in the Kobo ecosystem, the Libra Colour is an appealing alternative.

Are E Ink tablets worth it?

E Ink tablets are worth it for a specific group of users. They are ideal for people who prefer a paper-like display over the backlit LCD screens found on traditional tablets. They are also great for those who want a dedicated writing device without the distractions of email, social media, and notifications. Because most E Ink tablets do not run full operating systems, they limit what you can do. Even Android-based models are not designed for video consumption or intensive multitasking.

The biggest advantage of an E Ink tablet is focus. With fewer ways to get distracted, you can concentrate on your notes, books, and documents. The main reason to avoid an iPad or another standard tablet is the constant temptation to switch apps. For many people, having a separate device dedicated to reading and writing is worth the cost.

What to look for in an E Ink tablet

Writing and latency

The writing experience is the most important factor. Look for a tablet with low stylus latency and a comfortable screen texture. Most modern E Ink tablets perform well, but some have a more paper-like feel. Also, consider whether a stylus is included in the price. Some premium tablets charge extra for pens, which can significantly increase the total cost.

Reading

Think about what you will read on the device. E Ink tablets vary in screen size, with smaller models being more portable and larger ones better for reading A4 documents. Supported file formats are also critical. If you buy ebooks from Amazon or Kobo, it is easiest to choose a tablet from those companies because of DRM protection. Android-based tablets can run ebook apps, but other systems may limit you to open formats like PDF and EPUB.

Search functionality

Search features differ across devices. Some tablets automatically index your handwritten notes and allow keyword search. Others may only search typed text or file names. Consider how important it is to find past notes quickly. Features like handwriting recognition and keyword tagging are useful for heavy note-takers.

Sharing and connectivity

Most E Ink tablets support Wi-Fi and let you export notes via email or cloud services. Some have companion mobile apps that sync your notes to your phone or computer. If you use Evernote, OneNote, or other digital note systems, native integration is uncommon. You may need to export files manually. For those who heavily rely on cloud-based notes, a standard tablet with a stylus and screen protector might be a better fit.

Price

E Ink tablets generally cost between $300 and $800. Larger screens and color displays typically increase the price. Some brands have raised prices recently because of supply chain costs, so it is worth comparing current bundles and accessory prices. If you are on a budget, look for models that include a stylus and case in the box.

Other E Ink tablets we've tested

Onyx Boox Tab X C

The Boox Tab X C is a color-screened version of the Tab X, with a 13.3-inch Kaleido 3 display, an octa-core processor, 6GB of RAM, and Android 13. It is powerful and impressively thin, but it is also expensive at $820 for the basic bundle and $970 with the keyboard case. It is best for people who want a premium, all-in-one E Ink laptop-like device.

Lenovo Smart Paper

The Lenovo Smart Paper has solid hardware and good Google Drive integration, but it relies heavily on Lenovo's cloud service, which carries an additional cost. Its software is also less flexible than competitors like the reMarkable 2. As a result, it does not make our top picks list despite being a capable device.

Onyx Boox Tab Ultra

The Boox Tab Ultra runs Android 11 and supports a magnetic keyboard case, making it possible to use as a 2-in-1 laptop. It can browse the web, check email, and even play videos, but the E Ink screen is not ideal for those activities. It is best for users who prioritize reading comfort and battery life over performance and responsiveness.

Source: Engadget News

Editorial Mission and Scope

The publication covers a broad range of technology products, with special attention paid to unique features and emerging technologies. Major releases from industry leaders such as Apple and Samsung are always reviewed, but the team also seeks out niche products that might not receive mainstream attention but are still worthy of consumer interest. This approach ensures that readers are not only informed about the big launches but also discover products that could better suit their specific needs.

All reviews are based on real-world experience. Except where clearly noted, the products tested are market-ready units rather than pre-release prototypes. This is an important distinction because a prototype can behave differently from a final retail version. The publication acknowledges that the technology landscape changes quickly, so each review is treated as a snapshot in time. A product that is considered excellent today might face more competition next month, and an earlier review may not reflect later pricing changes or firmware updates.

Every review aims to be a comprehensive assessment that considers both the strengths and weaknesses of a product. The criteria for success vary from one category to another, but the ultimate goal is always to indicate the overall quality and value of the item.

Review Philosophy

The review process combines quantitative and qualitative testing. Depending on the type of product, the team runs different benchmarks to measure performance. For example, a laptop might be subjected to processing and graphics tests, while a smartphone camera is tested in a variety of lighting conditions. But the reviewers also approach each product from a consumer's perspective, because they are consumers themselves. Many of them are early adopters, tinkerers, and technology enthusiasts who use gadgets in their daily lives. When a new device arrives, the same questions come up: Does it deliver on all its promises? Is it better than the current best option? Who should buy it? And is it worth buying at all?

Real-World Usage

To answer these questions, reviewers use the products as if they were their own. A smartphone might be carried for days, used for photography, gaming, messaging, and even to annoy coworkers in a team chat. A laptop review might be written on the very machine being reviewed, which is a practical way to test the keyboard for extended typing sessions and gauge overall comfort. For creative tools such as synthesizers and samplers, the reviewer spends as much time as possible with the device to judge how usable it is for both seasoned creators and novices. This hands-on approach helps reveal build quality, versatility, and the kind of everyday value that a spec sheet cannot communicate.

Context Is Everything

Gadgets do not exist in a vacuum. The publication places every product into context by comparing it with direct competitors and thinking critically about the type of user who would get the most benefit from it. A product may be functionally excellent, but if its price is much higher than comparable options, that is an important part of the verdict. No gadget is perfect, but a particular device might be perfect for a particular reader's needs. The review process therefore considers not only what a product does, but who it is for and whether it justifies its cost.

The publication also acknowledges that personal preference plays a role in any review. Different reviewers may have very different opinions about the same product based on their own experiences, tastes, and habits. A review always reflects one person's opinion at one point in time. That is not a weakness but a feature of honest criticism, and readers are encouraged to read multiple perspectives when making a decision.

Scoring

Products are rated on a 1-100 scale. The final score is chosen by the editorial team with no outside input. This ensures that advertisers, manufacturers, or other third parties cannot influence the outcome. The score is agreed upon by the reviewer and their editor, and sometimes team members with relevant expertise are consulted. The process is designed to be collaborative and rigorous.

What the Scores Mean

• 0-29: An awful product that should be avoided. The reviewer warns that you will be sorry if you buy it.
• 30-49: A poor product that is more likely to frustrate than help the user.
• 50-54: A disappointing product with a lot of problems.
• 55-59: It might work in a pinch, but you would not want to use it regularly.
• 60-64: A forgettable product that is not necessarily bad but does nothing particularly well.
• 65-69: It has some redeeming qualities, but there are better options available.
• 70-74: A dependable product that either does not stand out from competition or has a very narrow appeal.
• 75-79: A very good product that falls just short of greatness, yet it can still be heartily endorsed.

Higher scores are split into two categories. The Recommended range covers 80-89, and it is divided into scores of 80-84 for products with a few flaws but a lot to like, and 85-89 for all-around great products among the best in their category. The Editors' Choice range starts at 90. A score of 90-94 is the best in its category and highly recommended. A 95-99 is an important, nearly flawless product that raises the bar for the technology industry. A 100 is described as a gadget unicorn, a rare and extraordinary device.

Unscored Reviews

While the numerical scoring system is designed for products that are central to the publication's coverage, not everything receives a score. Works of art, including movies and games, are not numerically rated. Instead, media reviews feature a mix of opinion, criticism, and analysis. Similarly, software, cars, and other products outside the typical consumer electronics market are not given a score. This approach allows the team to evaluate different kinds of experiences in a way that is appropriate to the medium.

Editorial Independence and Review Units

Choosing which products to review is an independent decision, made without influence from the parent company or advertisers. Review units are usually provided free of charge by the companies that make them, which is standard practice across the technology press. In most cases, hardware is returned to the manufacturer at the end of the review period. Occasionally, the publication may keep a unit for long-term testing, but the unit never becomes the reviewer's personal property. Reselling review units is strictly prohibited.

Transparency is a core value. The publication clearly states that reviews are typically based on products supplied by manufacturers, but its opinions and conclusions are independent. Early products are accepted when they can provide a more thorough and informative review, particularly around major launch cycles. However, the editorial process remains separate from any commercial relationship.

Manufacturers that want to submit a product for review can contact the editorial team, and readers who want more information about privacy policies, fact-checking, and corrections can consult the publication's policy pages. The overall message is simple: the people writing reviews are working for the reader, not for the industry.

Source: Engadget News

Some handhelds are designed for quick sessions and classic libraries, prioritizing simplicity, long battery life, and pocketable designs. Others blur the line between console and PC, offering large screens, powerful chips, and access to massive game libraries, often at the cost of size, price, or endurance. There are even experimental options that focus on unusual controls or intentionally limited experiences. We've spent months testing and tracking the fast-moving handheld market to figure out which devices are actually worth your money right now.

Best Handheld Gaming PC for Most: Steam Deck

The Steam Deck remains the best balance of price, performance, and usability in the gaming handheld market. The Steam Deck OLED, starting at $549 for 512GB of storage, is a thorough upgrade over the original LCD model. It features a 7.4-inch OLED display that is brighter, faster, slightly bigger, and more vivid than the 7-inch IPS panel on the entry-level model. The OLED panel supports HDR with significantly brighter highlights, and the maximum refresh rate jumps from 60Hz to 90Hz, making games look smoother in motion.

Thanks to a more power-efficient display and a larger battery, the Steam Deck OLED lasts longer than the original. Valve estimates three to twelve hours of gameplay depending on the title, compared to two to eight hours on the LCD model. The larger fan keeps things cooler and quieter, and the chassis feels lighter. Performance is roughly the same between the two, though the OLED model's increased memory bandwidth can add a few extra frames in certain games.

At $399, the entry-level Steam Deck LCD delivers the same core experience for $150 less, making it a fantastic budget pick. However, the Steam Deck is starting to show its age in 2026. Many of the most graphically demanding recent games don't run well on this hardware, and Linux compatibility issues mean some live-service titles like Destiny 2 and Apex Legends are unplayable. Still, it can handle a massive library of games, including Elden Ring, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, and countless indie gems. SteamOS has matured into a user-friendly platform, and tools like EmuDeck make it a superb emulation machine. The main downsides are its bulk and the slightly mushy d-pad, but the contoured grips help offset the size.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: Enough power for many modern PC games; user-friendly interface; vivid OLED on the upgraded model; excellent value on the LCD model; superb emulation performance.
• Cons: Bulky; not the most powerful hardware; doesn't officially support every Steam game or titles from other PC clients.

Best Premium Handheld Gaming PC: Lenovo Legion Go S (SteamOS)

The Lenovo Legion Go S is the closest thing we have to a Steam Deck 2. It's the first third-party device to natively run SteamOS, bringing all the conveniences (and occasional game compatibility issues) of Valve's handheld to more modern hardware. Equipped with an AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme processor, 32GB of RAM, and a 1TB SSD in our tested configuration, it can draw up to 33W in handheld mode or 40W when plugged in, well above the Steam Deck's 15W. This makes it noticeably better for resource-intensive games, often hitting 60fps in recent AAA titles at higher settings.

The device sports an 8-inch IPS display with a sharp 1920x1200 resolution, a 120Hz refresh rate, and variable refresh rate (VRR) support, which minimizes screen tearing. That's a significant advantage over the Steam Deck, though the LCD panel can't match the OLED's color richness or HDR capabilities. The Legion Go S is slightly chunkier and heavier than the Steam Deck, but its rounded edges and textured grips make it comfortable to hold. Hall effect joysticks reduce the risk of drift, and dual USB-C ports are welcome additions.

However, the extra horsepower means the fans are louder, and battery life is often shorter than the Steam Deck, especially with lighter games. The Z1 Extreme version currently costs $900, which is steep. There's also a Z2 Go configuration for $650, but we haven't tested that model yet. If you want to play recent blockbusters on the go and prioritize performance over portability, the Legion Go S is worth the premium.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: Better performance than the Steam Deck and most Windows handhelds; runs official SteamOS; spacious display with VRR; good ergonomics.
• Cons: Pricey; heavier than the Steam Deck; no HDR support; weak haptics.

Best Windows Gaming Handheld: ASUS ROG Xbox Ally X

If you want maximum software flexibility and are willing to spend extra, the ASUS ROG Xbox Ally X is our current favorite Windows-based handheld. Despite the Xbox branding, it's actually a Windows 11 PC, not a console. It ships with a new 'Xbox full screen experience' that acts as a game launcher, aggregating titles from Steam, Epic, GOG, and Xbox Game Pass. While it doesn't make Windows feel completely seamless, it does improve navigation with a controller.

The ROG Xbox Ally X is more powerful than the Steam Deck, thanks to its AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme chip and 24GB of RAM. Its 'Turbo mode' can boost power draw to 30W on battery and 35W when plugged in, allowing demanding AAA games to run at higher frame rates. The 7-inch 1080p display with a 120Hz refresh rate and VRR support keeps motion smooth even when frame rates fluctuate. It's not as vibrant as an OLED, but it's sharp and fast.

The biggest advantage over SteamOS devices is the ability to play games from any PC client, including Xbox Game Pass titles and games with anti-cheat software that don't work on Linux. The new Xbox full screen experience helps reduce Windows-related jank, and sleep mode mostly works now. However, you'll still encounter Windows quirks, such as needing to dig into desktop settings or dealing with pre-installed bloatware like Teams and OneDrive. The device is chunky and expensive at $1,000, but for those who value flexibility and performance, it's a solid choice.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: More powerful than the Steam Deck; works with any Windows gaming client; 1080p 120Hz display with VRR; comfortable grips; supports the new full-screen Xbox experience.
• Cons: Expensive; a bit bulky; Windows 11 still has quirks on handhelds; lackluster haptics; no included case.

Best Mobile Gaming Handheld for Most: Retroid Pocket 5

If you mainly want to emulate older consoles, the Retroid Pocket 5 is an excellent Android-based device. It's far less powerful than portable PCs, so it can only play PC, PS5, and Xbox games via streaming, but it excels at retro emulation. Powered by a Snapdragon 865 chip and 8GB of RAM, it can handle PlayStation 2 and GameCube games at full speed with 1.5x to 2.5x resolution scaling. Titles like Gran Turismo 4, Super Mario Sunshine, and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker run beautifully. Systems like PSP, Dreamcast, and PS1 are flawless at higher upscales, and most Wii and 3DS games are smooth at 720p to 1080p.

The 5.5-inch 1080p OLED display is vibrant and sharp, making games look fantastic. The build quality is sturdy, with textured grips and responsive face buttons, d-pad, and Hall effect joysticks. Battery life ranges from three hours with demanding Android games to over ten hours with older 8-bit and 16-bit titles. However, setting up emulators requires considerable tinkering, from securing ROM files to configuring control schemes and navigating RetroArch. Some games may need third-party GPU drivers or specific settings tweaks to run correctly. It's tedious work, but for retro enthusiasts, the results are worth it.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: Capable emulation and Android gaming performance; lovely OLED display; sticks and buttons feel great; sturdy, portable design.
• Cons: Requires a ton of tinkering; joystick layout isn't ideal for modern games.

Another Good Option: Retroid Pocket Flip 2

The Retroid Pocket Flip 2 is essentially the Pocket 5 in a clamshell shape. It shares the same Snapdragon 865 chip, OLED display, Hall effect joysticks, active cooling, and 5,000mAh battery. The clamshell design provides natural screen protection, making it easy to toss into a bag. The offset joysticks are more comfortable for analog-heavy games, and the controls are generally spacious. However, the recessed joysticks feel awkward, the face buttons and d-pad could be larger, and the flat back is a bit more fatiguing to hold. It costs $10 more than the Pocket 5, so whether it's worth it depends on your preference for the clamshell form factor.

Best Mobile Gaming Handheld Overall: AYN Odin 2

For those with more to spend on an emulation-focused handheld, the AYN Odin 2 is a step up from the Retroid models. Its Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 processor, the same chip found in flagship phones from 2023, delivers smoother and more reliable performance across the board. It runs all PS2 and GameCube games at two to three times native resolution, handles 3DS and Wii games with ease, and even plays a wider range of Switch games than cheaper devices. The extra power means less game-by-game tweaking.

The Odin 2 is also a refined piece of hardware. Its curved grips are comfortable, the controls are excellent, and the 6-inch 1080p display is bright and well-sized. Battery life is superb, with over eight hours of PS2 emulation and more than twenty hours on lighter tasks. It also includes nice extras like a fingerprint scanner, micro-HDMI output, and customizable back buttons. Starting at $299, it's more expensive than the Retroid Pocket 5, but it's worth the upgrade for serious retro gamers.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: Excellent emulation and Android gaming performance; comfortable; great battery life.
• Cons: Relatively pricey; emulator setup can still be laborious; docked experience isn't seamless.

Best Game Boy-style Handheld: Analogue Pocket

The Analogue Pocket is the ultimate Game Boy. Its vertical design is a modernized, premium take on Nintendo's classic handheld, and it plays actual Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance cartridges via its FPGA-based hardware. This means near-perfect hardware-level emulation with exceptional responsiveness and accuracy. The 3.5-inch display is incredibly sharp (615 ppi) and can be set to mimic the look of original panels. It also supports games from Sega Game Gear, TurboGrafx-16, Neo Geo Pocket, and Atari Lynx through optional adapters, and can run ROMs via microSD thanks to community updates.

The Pocket is well-built and features a USB-C port, microSD slot, and a battery rated for six to ten hours. It's expensive at $220, and the shoulder buttons are a bit spongy, but for anyone with a collection of retro cartridges, it's the most elegant way to play them. The main downside is frequent stock shortages and shipping delays.

Honorable Mention: Playdate

The Playdate is a tiny yellow handheld with a 2.7-inch monochrome display, a d-pad, two face buttons, and a physical crank. It's a quirky device focused on short, inventive indie games, with a curated library that includes a couple dozen free titles. At $229, it's hard to call it a great value, especially since the display isn't backlit, but its unique charm and high-quality build make it a fun toy for those who appreciate experimental game design.

What About the Nintendo Switch 2?

The Nintendo Switch 2 is incredibly popular, but we haven't made it a formal pick in this guide because it exists in its own world. It's the only device that can legally play new Nintendo exclusives like Donkey Kong Bananza and Mario Kart World, and it offers a significant hardware upgrade over the original Switch, with a larger 7.9-inch display, magnetic Joy-Cons, and improved performance. However, unless you're worried about tariff-driven price hikes, there's no rush to buy one just yet—the library of true must-play exclusives is still limited. It's a great option for Nintendo fans, but it doesn't offer the flexibility of a Steam Deck or ROG Ally.

Other Gaming Handhelds We've Tested

Several other devices have crossed our test bench. The Lenovo Legion Go 2 offers a stunning 8.8-inch OLED display with VRR and detachable controllers, but it's heavy, expensive, and performs slightly worse than the ROG Ally X. The MSI Claw 8 AI+ is a capable Windows handheld with strong performance and battery life, but at $1,100 it's hard to justify. The ModRetro Chromatic is a premium FPGA-based Game Boy clone, but it requires AA batteries and lacks save states, making it a tough sell against the Analogue Pocket. The Ayaneo Flip DS and Ayaneo Kun are interesting but overpriced and flawed. The Retroid Pocket Classic offers a Game Boy-style form factor with an OLED screen at a lower price, while budget options like the Miyoo Mini Plus and TrimUI Brick remain popular for their affordability, though they require more tinkering.

What to Know About the Gaming Handheld Market

The gaming handheld market falls into three broad tiers. At the top are x86-based portable gaming PCs like the Steam Deck and ROG Ally X, which offer the best performance and can play modern PC games but are large, expensive, and have shorter battery life. In the middle are Android-based mobile handhelds like the Retroid Pocket and AYN Odin, which are more compact and affordable but rely on emulation and cloud streaming for modern titles. Finally, there are unique devices like the Switch 2 and Playdate that run customized software and offer distinct game libraries. Understanding these categories can help you choose the right device for your needs, whether you're a hardcore gamer, a retro enthusiast, or a casual player looking for a quick pick-up-and-play experience.

Source: Engadget News

Gemini Intelligence is Google's ambitious attempt to make its AI assistant more aware of what is happening on the screen and in the user's broader digital life. Rather than waiting for a command, the Pixel 11 is designed to anticipate needs and offer help before a user even asks. This proactive approach is a major evolution from the traditional smartphone assistant model, where the phone only responds to explicit requests. With the Pixel 11, Google is aiming to create a companion that understands context, recognizes patterns, and delivers information at exactly the right moment.

A more helpful phone that acts before you ask

One of the standout features will see the Pixel 11 family generate glance-able cards inside apps you're using as you go about your day. These cards are designed to be quickly scannable, offering relevant information without requiring users to switch between apps or manually search. For instance, say a friend messages you about a trip that's coming up. You'll see a card appear with your flight details, indicating if it's on time or delayed. This kind of frictionless information delivery could redefine how people interact with their devices, making the phone feel less like a tool and more like a proactive personal assistant.

In other contexts, the phones will attempt to deliver contextual help. Google suggests a scenario where you're texting about dinner and your Pixel 11 offers to secure a reservation on your behalf. This goes beyond simple suggestions; the phone understands the conversation, identifies a relevant action, and offers to complete it. The company describes this as proactive help that appears in many more places across your phone. For example, users might see suggestions to save events to their Calendar, locations to Maps, or relevant information to Google Wallet, such as membership numbers on airline or hotel apps.

This level of integration is a critical part of Google's approach. By weaving AI assistance into the fabric of Android and its own apps, the company hopes to create an ecosystem that is genuinely useful rather than just superficially clever. The Pixel 11 is not just a phone with a chatbot; it is a phone that can understand the user's context and act on it.

Location-based lock screen suggestions

The new Pixels will also launch with a preview of a feature that will deliver proactive suggestions based on your location. This adds another layer to the AI's contextual awareness. For example, say you're waiting for a seat at a new restaurant. You'll see a lock screen notification with insights related to the spot, including information about the menu and where to sit to get the best view. Such features show how Google is combining on-device processing with location data to create a more seamless experience.

Google notes that for all the features mentioned above, you may need a subscription for higher usage. This is an interesting development, as it suggests that the company is moving toward a tiered AI service model. While basic proactive assistance may be free, heavy users might need to pay for a premium tier. This aligns with broader industry trends, as smartphone makers and cloud providers seek to monetize AI features that require significant computational resources.

Breaking down barriers with sign-language-to-text

Google is also expanding how you can interact with its phones, and this time the focus is on accessibility. The company's DeepMind lab has created a sign-language-to-text model that will debut first on the Pixel 11 line before coming to other devices. The model, known as SL2T, allows deaf and hard of hearing users to sign at their phone to search the web, write messages, and converse with Gemini. This is a significant step forward for inclusive technology, as it moves beyond voice and text input to embrace a visual language used by millions of people around the world.

The SL2T model leverages advances in computer vision and natural language processing to recognize and translate sign language gestures in real time. By making this feature a first-party offering on Pixel devices, Google is ensuring that it is deeply integrated with the rest of the system. Users can respond to messages, compose emails, or ask Gemini questions using sign language, and the phone will handle the rest. This has the potential to dramatically improve the daily experiences of deaf and hard of hearing users, making smartphones more accessible than ever before.

Google's investment in accessibility is not new, but the Pixel 11 shows that the company is willing to integrate these features at the core of its operating system. The fact that SL2T will eventually roll out to other devices also suggests that Google views this as a platform-wide feature rather than a one-off experiment.

Magic Capture reimagines smartphone photography

Of course, it wouldn't be a Pixel launch without at least one new AI-related camera feature. The phones will offer a new tool called Magic Capture, which Google says uses a combination of models to ensure you snap life's fleeting moments. When you go to photograph a subject like a smiling baby, or a fast-moving scene like a buzzer-beating three pointer, you'll just need to tap a single button on your phone. Behind the scenes, Google's models will analyze around 400 frames to deliver the perfect 12-megapixel snap.

Magic Capture is designed to eliminate the guesswork from photography. Instead of capturing a single frame at the moment you press the shutter, the Pixel 11's camera system records a burst of frames before and after your tap. The AI then analyzes these 400 frames to identify the one with the best expression, focus, and timing. This is particularly useful for capturing children, pets, sports, and other unpredictable subjects where timing is everything.

The feature can automatically apply edits for you, ensuring that exposure, color, and composition are optimized without manual intervention. And if a still photo isn't enough, you can even get a video without switching modes. This flexibility reflects a growing trend in smartphone photography: blurring the lines between photos and videos. By allowing users to tap a single button and receive both a perfect still and a video clip, Google is simplifying the capture process and helping users preserve memories in multiple formats.

Magic Capture also builds on years of computational photography innovations in the Pixel lineup. From the original Pixel's HDR+ technology to later features like Night Sight and Magic Eraser, Google has consistently used software to overcome hardware limitations. The Pixel 11 continues this tradition, using machine learning not just to enhance images after the fact, but to capture better moments in the first place.

The broader shift toward AI-driven assistance and photography raises important questions about privacy and on-device processing. Google has often emphasized its Private Compute Core and on-device machine learning capabilities, which are designed to keep sensitive data off Google's servers. With features like glanceable cards and location-based suggestions, users may wonder how much data the phone is using to make these predictions. Google has not disclosed all the details, but the company has historically stressed that many Pixel features are processed locally on-device, and that users have controls to manage their data.

The Pixel 11 launch also comes at a time when the smartphone market is maturing. Hardware upgrades are becoming less dramatic, and software differentiation is increasingly important. Apple's Siri and Samsung's Bixby have also evolved with AI, but Google's deep investment in large language models and computer vision gives it a unique edge. Gemini Intelligence represents Google's attempt to unify these capabilities into a coherent assistant that can see, hear, and understand the world in a more human way.

Developers and third-party app makers are likely to play a big role in expanding these features. If Google opens up the relevant APIs, other apps could integrate glanceable cards and contextual suggestions into their own interfaces. That could create a rich ecosystem of proactive assistance that extends far beyond Google's own apps. However, it also requires careful design to avoid overwhelming users with notifications and suggestions. The balance between helpful and intrusive is delicate, and Google will need to ensure that its proactive AI respects user attention.

For now, the Pixel 11 devices appear to be a bold step forward in the evolution of the smartphone. With proactive AI notifications, sign-language-to-text capabilities, and Magic Capture, Google is once again pushing the boundaries of what a phone can do. The emphasis on software over hardware reflects broader economic realities, but also a clear vision: the future of smartphones lies in intelligence, not just components. As the Pixel 11 begins to reach consumers, the true test will be whether these features feel magical in daily use or simply like clever gimmicks. Given Google's track record with Pixel cameras and assistant features, there is reason to be optimistic. The company has consistently transformed ambitious ideas into practical tools, and the Pixel 11 appears to carry that tradition forward.

Source: Engadget News

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri announced the change on his Instagram account, describing the refresh as cleaner and more modern. He said the wordmark references the original and honors the simplicity and craft that has always made Instagram what it is. Mosseri also acknowledged that the change would be scrutinized, posting the new design to Threads as well to see what reactions would emerge.

A break from a decade of cursive

Since 2016, the Instagram wordmark has been a flowing cursive mark with a lowercase 'i' and a distinctive long tail on the 'g.' It was introduced alongside the gradient camera icon that replaced the original retro camera design. The 2016 refresh was itself a major shift for the platform, moving away from a skeuomorphic brown-and-cream camera toward a vibrant purple, pink, and orange gradient. At the time, the new icon was criticized as generic and overly glossy, but over the years it became one of the most recognizable app icons in the world. The wordmark, too, became shorthand for Instagram's visual identity, appearing on marketing materials, merchandise, and creator content.

The new wordmark breaks with that decade-old tradition. Instead of a single continuous cursive sweep, the updated letterforms appear to combine elements of a sans-serif with cursive flourishes. The result is neither fully handwritten nor fully printed. Some letters, like the 'a' and the 'g,' seem to borrow from one style, while others feel more like standard typography. According to Mosseri, the goal was to create a cleaner and more modern look while still nodding to the original. Yet for many viewers, the most noticeable thing about the new wordmark is not its modernity but its apparent misreading.

The 'Instagzam' phenomenon became the dominant topic in the comments sections of both Instagram and Threads. Users quickly mocked the new typeface, with some asking whether the platform had accidentally hired a designer who misspelled the name. Others pointed out that the strange letterforms make the brand look less professional, not more. Even supporters of the update admitted that the wordmark takes time to get used to. Mosseri anticipated the backlash by posting the design on Threads and asking for hot takes, but the volume of negative responses still seemed to catch many observers by surprise.

What the design team explored

Instagram's design account on Threads later shared a selection of alternative typefaces that the team had considered before settling on the final version. Many of those options were more legible than the chosen design, which raised questions about why the platform selected one of the most difficult letterforms to read. The design account did not provide a detailed rationale, but the shared experiments suggest that the team was intentionally searching for a distinctive identity rather than a conventional one.

Branding experts were quick to weigh in on the change. Some argued that the new wordmark maintains a friendly, approachable character by keeping the cursive elements, while others said the hybrid approach fails to land because it tries to do too many things at once. The letterforms occupy an awkward middle ground between Instagram's historical identity and a more contemporary tech aesthetic. It is not as playful as the cursive original, but it is also not as clean as a conventional sans-serif wordmark used by most modern apps.

This tension may be intentional. Many social platforms have spent the past few years simplifying their logos and wordmarks to work better across small screens, stickers, and augmented reality filters. A cursive script can be difficult to read at small sizes, so a more streamlined design might seem like a logical step. Yet the new wordmark's legibility problem undermines that practical motivation. If the goal was to create a mark that reads easily in every context, choosing a treatment that looks like it says 'Instagzam' seems counterproductive.

The history of Instagram's visual identity

Instagram launched in 2010 with a vintage camera icon and an app name set in a typeface that evoked analog photography. The original logo was heavily skeuomorphic, designed to look like a real Polaroid camera with a rainbow stripe. That early identity matched the app's core promise: making mobile photos look nostalgic and polished with instant filters. As Instagram grew, the brand evolved. By 2016, the company was under the umbrella of Meta and facing pressure to modernize its image. The gradient icon and cursive wordmark were supposed to reflect a more expressive, colorful community. That identity remained in place through many product changes, including the introduction of Stories, Reels, and a shift toward longer video content.

Now, Instagram is once again trying to define a new era. The company has been experimenting with artificial intelligence, creator monetization, and algorithm changes. A new wordmark is part of a broader effort to signal freshness and innovation. But a logo refresh is always a risk because users develop strong attachments to visual identities. Instagram's cursive wordmark had become a symbol of the app's culture, and replacing it can feel like losing a familiar friend. The negative reaction is not surprising; every major redesign of a beloved brand, from Gap to Airbnb, has faced a chorus of criticism before people eventually adjust.

Reactions and bot accusations

Some of the responses to the new wordmark appeared to be suspiciously positive. Several accounts posted generic praise with a burst of emojis, leading other users to accuse Instagram of deploying bots to tip the comments in a favorable direction. There is no public evidence that Instagram coordinated this response, but the pattern was notable enough to become a story in itself. The incident highlights how difficult it is to measure genuine public opinion on social media, where data can be polluted by automated engagement.

Meanwhile, legitimate users were split. Some mourned the loss of the old cursive typeface, arguing that the new design discards the warmth and personality that set Instagram apart. Others welcomed the change, saying the old wordmark looked dated and that the refresh feels more in line with current design trends. There were also users who defended the new logo on the grounds that it is still recognizable as Instagram, even if it takes a moment to parse. The debate is a reminder that logo design is inherently subjective and that no single typeface can please everyone.

What the new wordmark means for the brand

Wordmarks are a core part of a company's brand identity. They appear on the app, on advertising, and in videos. Changing a wordmark is more than a cosmetic update; it is a statement about where the brand is heading. With the new hybrid letterforms, Instagram seems to be trying to hold on to its creative, expressive roots while pushing toward a more modern visual language. The mixed reaction suggests that the company may be caught between two audiences: longtime users who value the classic identity and a newer generation that expects a more polished, streamlined aesthetic.

Whether the new wordmark becomes as iconic as its predecessor depends on time, repetition, and the broader context of Instagram's evolution. Logo changes often receive immediate backlash but gradually become accepted as the new normal. People called the original 2016 gradient icon ugly when it first appeared, yet it was later celebrated as one of the most iconic logos of its era. The new wordmark may follow a similar trajectory. For now, the public conversation is dominated by jokes about 'Instagzam,' and that alone may be enough to make the redesign a memorable moment in Instagram's history.

As the 'Instagzam' jokes continue to circulate, the new wordmark has already achieved one thing: it has made people talk about Instagram's brand in a way they have not in years. Whether that attention will translate into approval remains to be seen, but the debate is not going away. Instagram will have to decide whether to keep the new design and let it age into familiarity or respond to the criticism by returning to the drawing board. The next few weeks will reveal whether Mosseri's 'cleaner and more modern' vision will win over the doubters or become another cautionary tale in the long history of logo redesigns.

Source: The Verge News