Choosing the best laptop can be a bit of a challenge — there are so many models, sizes and specs out there that it’s easy to feel lost in the shuffle. But the good news is that modern laptops are better than ever. Whether you're looking for a powerful AI PC, a travel-ready ultrabook or an affordable machine that can handle everyday tasks, there's something out there for everyone. Today’s systems combine improved performance, longer battery life and smarter features in sleek, lightweight designs that are built to keep up with work, play and everything in between.
Out of all of the notebooks we've tested and reviewed recently, we consider Apple's 13-inch MacBook Air M4 to be the best laptop for most people, and this is still the case for our top picks to start off the new year. It's powerful enough to handle most tasks (even light video editing); it has a great screen and built-in speakers; and its battery could last over 18hours (depending on what you're doing, of course). The MacBook Air M4 is also one of the lightest and thinnest systems we've reviewed, and it's dead silent, thanks to a fanless design.
Of course, not everyone wants a MacBook, and there are excellent Windows laptops and Chromebooks out there, too. Windows systems offer a range of configurations, from budget to high-end UHD screens with stunning IPS panels that boast high nits for vivid brightness. Chromebooks, on the other hand, tend to be more affordable and are great for users who mostly work online. Whether you need a powerhouse for creative work, a compact system for note-taking, or a laptop that can handle family movie night, there’s something for everyone in today’s laptop market.
Engadget has been reviewing laptops for two decades, and while the definition of what a portable PC is has changed considerably since, our obsession with testing their limits and serving up informative buying advice remains the same. Be it a hybrid tablet like Microsoft's Surface machines, a rotating 2-in-1 convertible like HP's Spectre x360s or a plain old clamshell notebook, our review process follows similar beats. How does it look and feel? How fast is it? Whether it’s a Windows device powered by an Intel Core i5 or higher, a MacBook or a Chromebook, we aim to answer the most important question: Is it actually worth your hard-earned cash? We also pay close attention to portability, webcam quality and display features, including IPS panels and nits of brightness, as they can make a big difference in daily use.
There's a good chance you've already committed to an operating system, but my advice is to be as flexible as possible. These days, most major software is compatible with both Macs and PCs. (Of course, it's another story if you've become dependent on an Apple-only app like Final Cut Pro.) Web-based apps, naturally, will work on any platform with an internet browser.
If you're an Apple-loyalist, there aren't many reasons to consider Windows laptops (unless you want a secondary gaming machine). But for Windows users, macOS is becoming more tempting every year. Apple's MacBooks, powered by its M-series Silicon chips, are among the fastest and most efficient laptops we've ever seen. They're incredibly well-built and have outstanding battery life to boot. MacOS itself is also an easy platform to learn, especially if you're used to iOS and iPadOS.
That brings up another point: iPhone users may want to consider Macs because of the seamless integration with Apple's other platforms. You can't respond to iMessage conversations easily or hop into FaceTime chats on Windows PCs, but doing so is simple on Macs. (Microsoft's Phone Link app lets you send iOS users individual texts, but not media or group chats.) Android users, meanwhile, may be better off with Windows, as Phone Link can make calls, synchronize all your texts and also access your phone's photos.
If cloud gaming is your priority, Windows laptops with NVIDIA’s GeForce Now or Xbox Cloud Gaming compatibility may offer more flexibility and decent performance, especially when paired with fast internet speeds. Chromebooks also make a compelling case here as an affordable, lightweight solution for casual cloud gaming sessions.
As for whether you’ll want a PC with a dedicated Copilot AI button on the keyboard, that depends on how often you see yourself using Microsoft’s generative tools. Given we’re only just seeing the first slate of AI PCs, it would be wiser to wait out the hype and see what improvements might come over time.
And what about ChromeOS? Chromebooks are a smart and (typically) inexpensive way to do things like web browsing and hopping on a few video chats, but for most, they're not the best choice as a primary computer. There aren't many apps or games that work offline, and they also don't work with powerful software suites like Adobe's (you can use the stripped-down Adobe Express and Photoshop online tools, though).
Chromebooks are great secondary machines to use alongside a more powerful Mac or PC, and they're popular in schools because they're cheap and easy for IT workers to manage. And if all you need is web browsing access, or a notebook for a kid, a Chromebook might be enough.
If, for some reason, you’re looking for a powerful ChromeOS system, there are also Chromebook Plus models to consider. These machines sport faster processors and more RAM than typical Google notebooks, and they can also tap into a few of the company’s online AI features, like AI image generation and photo processing.
You can expect to spend between $1,000 and $1,800 for a new laptop these days, depending on the configuration. If you're looking for more of a workhorse, that could cost you well over $2,000 for additional RAM, storage, as well as a beefier graphics card and CPU. But you can also find some good laptops under $1,000 if you're willing to overlook build quality (or buy a refurbished or previous generation machine, which we highly recommend). Systems with AMD chips tend to come in cheaper than their Intel counterparts, but the bulk of their cost will come down to other components like RAM and storage.
I’ve included our favorite affordable model in this best laptop buying guide, but we have a list of the best budget laptops that you can check out as well.
So how portable do you want your laptop to be? That's the ultimate question you need to ask when choosing between various screen sizes. 13-inch machines have become a solid starting point for most shoppers — it's enough real estate for the majority of tasks like emailing and writing, and it also helps keep machines relatively light (typically between two to three pounds). Thanks to manufacturing advancements, these dainty machines sometimes even come with larger screens (the smaller MacBook Air actually has a 13.6-inch display).
If you have trouble seeing fine text, we’d recommend going for a display larger than 13 inches. ASUS’s Zephyrus G14 is a solid 14-inch option for gamers, and we’re also seeing more productivity-focused machines aim for that size, like the Dell 14 Premium and MacBook Pro. While 14-inch notebooks are a bit heavier than 13-inch models, coming in between three to four pounds, their screens are noticeably roomier.
For artists, or anyone else who needs a large canvas, a 15-inch laptop may make the most sense. They typically weigh between 3.5 and 4.5 pounds, but that extra heft may be worth it to fit wider video editing timelines or Photoshop windows. And, as you'd expect, you'll also pay a bit more for a 15-inch notebook compared to smaller ones (the 15-inch MacBook Air starts at $1,199, while the smaller model goes for $999). PC makers are also replacing 15-inch systems with 16-inch versions, which will give you even more space to work.
If you're in the market for a business laptop, size and portability might be key considerations. A lightweight yet powerful system with a long battery life can make a world of difference if you travel frequently for work.
You can still find laptops with 17-inch or 18-inch screens, but those are typically gaming systems or souped-up workstations. They're not meant for mere computing mortals.
These days, most laptops ship with a few USB-C ports, which can handle both charging and speedy data transfers. Apple's MacBooks also include a separate connection for MagSafe power, and you'll find custom power connections on some PCs like Microsoft's Surface. Older USB Type-A connections are less common now, but they still pop up in systems like HP's Spectre x360 14, as well as many models from ASUS.
For gamers or creators who rely on discrete graphics, ensuring your laptop has the right ports for external monitors or GPUs is crucial. DisplayPort or HDMI connections can also ensure you’re ready for dual- or multi-screen setups for more immersive experiences. Similarly, if you want to save high-resolution files or install multiple games, you might need to consider additional hard drive space; external hard drives are pretty affordable, as long as you have a proper port to connect them.
If you're a fan of wired headphones, it's worth keeping a close eye on headphone jack availability. They usually include a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter, but that's a clunky solution, and it also takes up a USB port. Sure, most people use wireless earbuds and cans today, but it's still helpful to have a wired one around for when those devices run out of juice.
Most laptops today offer Wi-Fi 6 or 6E and Bluetooth 5.0 or later, which should mean faster and more stable connections if you have compatible routers and devices. While Wi-Fi 7 routers have started appearing, that spec hasn't made its way into laptops yet. As for cellular coverage, there are notebooks like the Surface Pro 9 and Samsung Galaxy Book models that offer integrated 5G. But from our testing, that feature may not be worth the cost of a separate data plan. Instead, you could tether to your smartphone or invest in a wireless hotspot that can keep multiple devices online.
A laptop's battery life depends on several factors: The power draw from the screen and other hardware, the optimizations used to avoid unnecessary power drain, and, of course, the size of the actual battery. One of our previous favorite systems, the Dell XPS 13, lasted 13 hours and 15 minutes in the PCMark 10 battery benchmark. In real-world testing, I was able to use it for a day and a half without needing a recharge. The MacBook Air 13-inch, meanwhile, more than 18 hours in our benchmark and kept running for more than two work days of my typical workflow. In general, you should expect a modern laptop to last at least eight hours.
If battery life is your absolute priority, I'd strongly suggest looking at Macs over Windows PCs. Apple's M-series chips are essentially mobile hardware, with all of the power efficiency you'd expect from something originally designed for phones. Qualcomm’s upcoming Snapdragon chips could help Windows PCs compete with Apple’s astonishing battery life, but we’ve yet to see those in action. Chromebooks also typically get decent battery life (as long as you don’t overstuff them with power-draining tabs).
A laptop's refresh rate refers to the amount of times its screen is cycled every second. Modern displays like IPS LCDs and OLEDs support 60Hz refresh rates at a minimum, but we're seeing more devices offering 120Hz, 240Hz and beyond. The higher the number, the faster the screen is refreshed, which ultimately leads to a smoother experience while mousing around or scrolling through web pages. (If you want to get a sense of what a slow refresh rate looks like, just grab an e-reader like the Kindle and try to flip between book pages.)
While high refresh rates used to be reserved for gaming laptops, nowadays we're seeing more mainstream machines like the Dell 14 Premium offer 120Hz (or variable rates that move between 60Hz and 120Hz).
If you’re buying a new laptop, you’ll want to make sure it’s powered by the latest CPUs. For Windows PCs, that includes Intel’s Core Ultra chips for thin-and-light machines or the 14th-gen HX chips for beefier systems. The Core Ultra series have NPUs for handling AI tasks, while the HX hardware does not – they’re based on Intel’s previous chip architecture, and they’re more focused on delivering raw horsepower. Intel's older 13th-gen and 12th-gen laptop chips also don't have NPUs, so keep that in mind if you're looking at used systems.
You'll also see AMD's Ryzen 8000 and 9000 chips in plenty of new systems like the ASUS Zephyrus G14 and Razer Blade 14. Those CPUs mainly target gaming laptops and high performance systems, while you'll still find AMD’s older Ryzen 7000 chips in ultraportables. AMD's main advantage is that its chips also include Radeon graphics, which are far more capable than Intel's Arc hardware (though those are getting better).
Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon X Elite and X Plus are also an option in Copilot+ PCs (more on those below). Since they’re based on mobile chip designs, they’re likely also more power efficient than AMD and Intel’s hardware. In the past, we’ve avoided recommending Snapdragon chips because they led to a slow and frustrating Windows experience. But Microsoft claims it’s rebuilt Windows 11 around Snapdragon’s Arm-based architecture, which should lead to far faster performance and better app compatibility.
As for Apple's laptops, you'll be choosing between the M4, M4 Pro and M4 Max, each of which is progressively more powerful.
On the graphics side of things, a GPU, or graphics processing unit, is the component that communicates directly with a laptop's display. Laptop CPUs all have some form of integrated GPU: Intel has either its standard graphics or beefier Arc hardware, while AMD's chips include fast Radeon mobile graphics. If you want to play demanding games at high speeds (measured in frames per second, or fps), or if you need some extra power for rendering video or 3D models, you can configure a laptop with a dedicated GPU like NVIDIA's RTX 40-series hardware or AMD's Radeon RX 7000. Just be sure to leave room in your budget if you want a powerful GPU, as they typically add $300 or more to the cost of a laptop.
Apple's M-series chips, meanwhile, have GPU cores that can perform as well as NVIDIA’s and AMD's lower-end dedicated GPUs. That's quite the accomplishment for systems like this (especially the MacBook Air and 14-inch MacBook Pro), and it's another reason we highly recommend Apple's notebooks.
Simply put, an AI PC is a computer equipped with a neural processing unit (NPU), which is designed to handle AI-related tasks. Much like how GPUs tackle heavy-duty gaming and rendering workloads, NPUs are designed to handle the complex math necessary for AI workloads. They’re also far more power efficient than CPUs or GPUs, which could lead to better battery performance in laptops. While many factors go into NPU performance, for the most part we measure their potential speed by TOPS (tera operations per second).
We were primed for AI PCs based on the chips Intel and AMD announced in 2023. Intel unveiled its "Core Ultra" CPUs in December, its first to include an NPU for AI work. AMD also announced its Ryzen 8040 AI mobile chips that month (and it couldn't help but say they were faster than Intel's new hardware). But in May, Microsoft announced its Copilot+ initiative, which is pushing major PC makers to deliver premium AI PCs with specifications including 16GB of RAM, 256GB SSDs and NPUs with at least 40 TOPS of AI performance.
Copilot+ is more than just a marketing term: Microsoft is also launching AI-powered features in Windows 11 that take advantage of powerful NPUs. That includes Recall, which can help you locate anything you’ve done on your PC (whenever it finally launches), as well as Cocreator in Paint, which can generate AI images based on text prompts and doodles.
If you buy an AI PC that isn’t Copilot+ certified, you’ll still be able to use some features like Windows Studio Effects, which can blur your background in video calls or keep you in frame. Developers like Adobe and Audacity are also building features into their apps that can take advantage of NPUs.
At the time of this post, Chromebook Plus notebooks can also access a few of Google’s online AI features, like image generation and photo processing.
The ThinkPad X9-14 Aura Edition is a great spiritual successor to the ThinkPad X1 Carbon, offering the best that business laptops have to offer. That includes long battery life packed into a thin and light chassis. This is an optimal ultraportable business laptop.
While the price might give you some pause, we tested the lowest configuration, and found that the X9-14’s performance is excellent for casual business users. The only issue with quality is that the keyboard is lacking. It’s mushier than we’d like, which could get a bit tiresome throughout the day. You’ll still miss out on a USB Type-A port, so you may need to carry a Type-C hub with you.
Where the ThinkPad X9-14 will win you over is its bold OLED screen. Combo that with its well-rounded audio, and the ThinkPad X9-14 makes for an excellent multimedia device in and out of the workplace.
Aside from its lovely OLED screen, the ASUS Zenbook 14 OLED doesn't stand out from the crowded laptop field in any way. It just looks dull and boring, especially compared to the strikingly beautiful ASUS Zephyrus G14, which also came out this year. While you can probably find the Zenbook 14 for a decent price, I'd recommend holding out for something with a bit more personality (and with a less wobbly screen hinge).
The Razer Blade has almost everything you'd want in a 14-inch gaming notebook, but it's far pricier than the Zephyrus G14 on this list, and it doesn’t even have an SD card reader. It would be a solid competitor once its price falls a bit, and it's certainly a great option if you just have to have a jet-black laptop.
Framework gave its modularity magic to the Laptop 16, delivering a gaming notebook where almost every single component is user replaceable. But you'll have to pay a pretty penny to snag it with upgraded hardware, and its optional Radeon 7700S GPU was surprisingly slow.
The Alienware m16 r2 has been revamped with a slimmer case, but it’s otherwise a fairly typical gaming laptop. It’s a solid option for Alienware fans, but you’ll find better hardware and deals elsewhere.
The Zenbook Duo is a fascinating dual-screened notebook, and according to my colleague Sam Rutherford it’s the first of its kind that’s worth buying. But its unique hardware isn’t really meant for mainstream consumers, and Windows 11 still doesn’t support multi-screen setups well enough to make full use of the Zenbook Duo’s ample canvas.
Dell’s XPS 16 is big and beautiful, but it’s far too expensive compared to the competition. Plus, it uses a capacitive row of function keys that you basically can’t see under bright light and has too few ports for a machine of this size.
See Also:
It’s hard to come up with an average battery life for laptops, since that will ultimately depend on what you’re doing with them. An ultraportable like the MacBook Air that sips power can last around 20 hours in our battery benchmark, and around two full work days of real-world usage. But a gaming laptop may last only a few hours if you’re actively playing something while on battery. At this point, Macs are delivering far better battery life than PCs, thanks to Apple’s Silicon chips, but Microsoft claims Copilot+ systems with Qualcomm chips will also get over 20 hours of batter life.
The more RAM you have, the more things your computer can do simultaneously. For that reason, we recommend buying PCs and Macs with at least 16GB of RAM. That gives you enough memory to have several applications open at once, as well as web browsers filled with RAM-hogging tabs. Many PC games also require at least 16GB of RAM. While you could use a system with 8GB of RAM for basic tasks, you’ll quickly run into slowdowns and error messages as your apps stack up. Many laptops, especially ultraportables, don’t let you upgrade RAM, too – so you’ll have to buy an entirely new computer if you didn’t equip enough memory at the start.
If you’re a hardcore gamer, programmer or planning to render videos or 3D models, then you may want to go for 32GB of RAM or more. And if you just need a secondary laptop for lighter work – perhaps a no-frills system for writing – then you can probably get by with 8GB. Just be sure to keep those browser tabs in check.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to laptop storage. You’ll typically find configurations between 256GB and 1TB SSDs (solid state drives) on most laptops, and I’d recommend most people get at least 512GB. That’ll be enough space for large apps, music and video files without stressing your system too much. If you’re a media hoarder, or want to play a ton of games, then it’s definitely worth getting a 1TB SSD.
If you’ll mainly be streaming your shows and music, and would rather invest in RAM or other hardware, then 256GB of storage would be serviceable. I’d recommend staying away from any machine with 128GB of storage though. Most of that will be taken up by the operating system, and you’ll likely run into issues cramming in large apps after a few months.
We recommend springing for extra built-in storage or investing in a portable SSD for backing up your most important files. It's also worth noting that Chromebooks tend to come with less built-in storage — 32GB, 64GB or 128GB — since ChromeOS encourages users to save their files in the cloud rather than on the device. In that case, 128GB is plenty.
You can expect to spend between $1,000 and $1,800 for a typical 13-inch laptop today. As I explained above, you'll pay more if you want to stuff in more RAM or better GPU hardware. But you can also find deals below $1,000 if you look for refurbished or older-generation models.
Simply put, macOS is the operating system in all of Apple's notebooks and desktops, while Windows powers the vast majority of PCs. You'll also find Chromebooks running Google's ChromeOS, but those are basically just web browsers running on top of Linux.
Debating the differences between Windows and Macs is something PC nerds have been doing since the '80s, so we won't be declaring a winner here. There are some small, negligible distinctions, like using a Command versus a Control key, how file explorers work and concerns about viruses and security. For the most part, those are minor issues or have become moot thanks to better built-in security.
But if you care more about playing the newest games, you'll want to have a Windows system. If you're more focused on creative apps, like Photoshop, Premiere and Final Cut Pro, then macOS may be a better fit (especially if you're running an iPhone).
There is no single "best" laptop brand, but judging from this guide alone, we're generally impressed by notebooks from Apple, Dell and ASUS. They all offer fast, reliable and sturdy machines. HP also makes some eye-catching devices if you want an option that’s the most aesthetic. Those four brands, along with Lenovo and Acer, dominate laptop sales worldwide. We'd avoid systems from any retail store brands, or companies that don't have a major presence in the US.
August 2025: Updated our top picks to include the Dell 14 Premium.
May 2025: Updated to ensure top picks and details are still accurate.
March 2025: Updated to include the M4-powered MacBook Air.
November 2024: Updated to include the M4-powered MacBook Pros.
August 2024: Updated to include the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 12.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/laptops/best-laptops-120008636.html?src=rss©
© Sam Rutherford for Engadget
Wired reported on new cybersecurity research that demonstrated a hack of the Google Gemini artificial intelligence assistant. The researchers were able to control connected smart home devices through the use of indirect prompt injections in Google Calendar invites. When a user requested a summary of their calendar and thanked Gemini for the results, the malicious prompt ordered Google's Home AI agent to take actions such as opening windows or turning lights off, as demonstrated in the video above.
Before attacks were demonstrated this week at the Black Hat cybersecurity conference, the team shared their findings directly with Google in February. Andy Wen, a senior director of security product management with Google Workspace, spoke to Wired about their findings.
"It’s going to be with us for a while, but we’re hopeful that we can get to a point where the everyday user doesn’t really worry about it that much," he said of prompt injection attacks, adding that instances of those hacks in the real world are "exceedingly rare." However, the growing complexity of large language models means bad actors could be looking for new ways to exploit them, making the approach difficult to defend against. Wen said Google took the vulnerabilities uncovered by the researchers "extremely seriously" and used the results to speed its work on building better tools to block this type of attack.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/researchers-hacked-google-gemini-to-take-control-of-a-smart-home-201926464.html?src=rss©
© Ben Nassi
Alex Karp, the frizzy-haired CEO of defense software company Palantir, has become somewhat of a pro at deflecting criticism. As he sat for an interview in April at the tech policy-focused Hill and Valley Forum in Washington D.C. and a heckler started shouting at him from the balcony, Karp retorted rather calmly, telling the audience he believed it was her right to express her views.
But this week—after Palantir reported blockbuster earnings on Monday—Karp took a moment to bask in his company’s meteoric rise and take a jab at his critics.
Palantir, based in Denver, surpassed $1 billion in quarterly revenue for the first time this week, posting growth figures that blew past analyst estimates. Palantir’s stock soared to more than $160 a share, marking a 555% increase from this time last year. By market close on Tuesday, Palantir’s market cap had hit nearly $409 billion, making it the 23rd most valuable company in the world, just behind Johnson & Johnson, a company with more than 23 times Palantir’s revenue and more than 35x the number of employees.
As he started speaking on Monday’s earnings call, Karp, who has a PhD in neoclassical social theory, was absolutely delighted—and true to form, a bit snarky, too.
“Well, as usual, I’ve been cautioned to be a little modest about our bombastic numbers, but honestly, there’s no authentic way to be anything but have enormous pride and gratefulness about these extraordinary numbers,” Karp said. As he wrapped up the call, he gave a quippy message to retail investors about the analysts that have “been wrong about every quarter.” “Maybe stop talking to all the haters—they’re suffering,” he said.
Palantir, a software company co-founded by Peter Thiel, has many “haters,” as Karp puts it. As a tech company that got its start selling to the U.S. military during the War on Terror, Palantir has been fully embedded in some of the most polarizing political debates of modern geopolitics. Particularly now, Palantir has stirred criticism over its software being used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as the Israeli military.
On the financial side, there’s a different kind of critic: those who question how such a relatively small company—one whose revenue and profits are so small in comparison to peers that it doesn’t even qualify for the Fortune 500 list—could reasonably become one of the most valuable companies in the world.
For Palantir, it has been a slow, albeit volatile, climb to where it is now—marked by contentious legal battles, noisy protests and picket lines, and an eccentric leadership team and employee base who sometimes endearingly refer to one another as “hobbits,” in credit to the company’s Lord of the Rings nomenclature (Palantir is in reference to the seeing stones created by Elves that allow people to see far away or communicate with others). And, more recently, in the last two years, Palantir has ridden the generative AI wave.
“They’ve got their feet under them—they’ve got their sales cycle down a little bit more. They’re just making things really, really sticky for large multinational corporations,” says Evan Loomis, a venture capitalist who is close friends with Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale and whose construction technology startup, ICON, uses Palantir’s software platform Foundry.
While the company is currently one of the best-performing stocks in the S&P 500, Palantir’s stock has also been known to be incredibly volatile, and sometimes dramatically influenced by retail investor activity. Palantir is undoubtedly having a moment—but will it last?
There are a host of near-term data points analysts look at: sales, cash flow, profit, customer retention. If you look at most of these near-term fundamentals, Palantir is trading at a premium.
“They are trading at least two times more expensive on the traditional metrics,” says Mariana Pérez Mora, an equity analyst at Bank of America Securities, who has been following the company since 2022.
But, as we speak, Pérez Mora reminds me about another important, longer-term metric for SaaS companies that Karp has repeatedly reminded onlookers to pay close attention to. That metric is called the “Rule of Forty.”
The Rule of Forty figure is calculated by adding the year-over-year revenue growth rate and adjusted operating margin. If those percentages are collectively higher than 40%, you have sustainable growth.
If you look at Palantir’s last quarter, Pérez Mora points out, the rule of 40 was 94%.
“That is the type of growth they are having. And the reality is that growth is accelerating, and that accelerating growth is not at the expense of profitability. And that is pretty unique,” she says, adding: “Palantir is trading as the company that they are growing into, and this is why it’s more expensive.”
There are a few key contributors to these numbers. For one, new government contracts.
Palantir has been working with the government since the beginning—its first customer being the CIA—and government contracts still make up a majority of its business. At the end of July, Palantir signed a 10-year contract worth up to $10 billion with the U.S. Army. It was one of the largest software contracts the Department of Defense has ever signed and, by far, Palantir’s largest contract to-date. And, ironically, it is the same customer Palantir sued (successfully) almost 10 years ago, accusing the department of unlawfully excluding companies like Palantir from its procurement process.
There could be more contracts of this scale on the table, too. The Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency Act, or FoRGED Act, currently on the table would reshape the Department of Defense’s procurement process for private contracts, eliminating hundreds of statutes and making it easier for tech companies like Palantir to sell to the government. The legislation, which Palantir has publicly endorsed and which its executives have pushed for in public hearings, would likely cut into the advantage that some of the industry incumbents like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Northrop Grumman have gained over the years.
The Department of Defense has been making trims to its budget since Trump named Pete Hegseth to the top role. But Palantir is seemingly benefitting from that, too. Only a couple months after the Department of Defense said it had cut more than $5.1 billion in contracts to consulting agencies, including Accenture and Deloitte, both companies announced new strategic partnerships with Palantir to collectively deliver solutions to government clients.
But the lion share of growth at Palantir over the last year is coming from a newer segment of customers—the commercial side of the business. Revenue for the commercial side rose 93% year-over-year this past quarter. And nearly all of those contracts stem from the generative artificial intelligence platform it released in 2023, called “AIP” (which stands for the ever-original “artificial intelligence platform”).
Perez Mora says that while a lot of companies are building and offering large language models, Palantir has found a way to help companies make use of them—and drive real results for their businesses.
On this last earnings call, Karp said that Citibank was onboarding its customers and running the relevant know-your-customer and security checks in seconds, down from nine days. He said that residential mortgage enterprise Fannie Mae is uncovering mortgage fraud in seconds, versus two months. And he said that Lear Corporation is using Palantir’s platform to manage tariff exposure.
Investors seem to have taken note, as there is a direct correlation between the launch of AIP in 2023 and the steady upward trajectory Palantir’s stock has experienced since.
But generative AI is still new—and many companies and industries haven’t fully explored or realized just what jobs AI will be able to replace or make more efficient. Palantir itself doesn’t seem to have it sorted out either.
CEO Karp said in an interview on CNBC this week that he thinks Palantir could keep growing revenue while reducing headcount by 500 jobs to about 3,600 people. But if you look at Palantir’s headcount, it has been doing the opposite: adding about 200 people between 2023 and 2024, not cutting roles. For all that companies like Alphabet or Salesforce are boasting of the efficiencies they are adding within their ranks by using AI, those same companies have seen their workforces grow.
Palantir’s valuation may be climbing to new heights, but the company is as controversial as ever. They’ve been the target of sit-ins, picketings, and other protests that have pulled in hundreds of people in New York City, Palo Alto, Denver, Seattle, and Los Angeles, condemning Palantir’s contract with the ICE (Palantir has been running a six-month pilot contract “centered on enforcement prioritization and immigration lifecycle management,” the company says.) Palantir has a partnership with the Israeli Defense Forces for “war-related missions,” which has also come under fire. A report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council in June that singled out companies aiding Israel in the war in Gaza, including Lockheed Martin, said there was “reasonable grounds to believe” Palantir was providing automatic predictive policing technology and core defense infrastructure to Israel.
A Palantir spokeswoman said the company “does not provide the technology for Israel to conduct missile strikes or targeting operations in Gaza and has no involvement in the Lavendar or Gospel systems. These targeting capabilities are entirely independent of and predate our partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Defense.”
Karp addressed some of the criticism Palantir has received over the years on the last earnings call. “Palantir gets attacked just because we help make this country even better, because we support the values, because we defend it,” he said. Earlier this year, Karp and Palantir’s head of corporate affairs, Nicholas Zamiska, published The Technological Republic, which criticizes Silicon Valley for spending its time on consumer apps and dodging working with the government and playing a role in defending freedoms and democracy.
But there has also been some notable pushback even from former employees in the last couple years. In May, more than a dozen former Palantir employees signed an open letter to the tech community, alleging that Palantir had violated principles core to the company due to its work with the Trump Administration.
“Palantir prides itself on [a] culture of fierce internal dialogue and even disagreement on difficult issues related to our work,” a Palantir spokeswoman said. “The small number of former Palantir employees—13 of 4,000—raising concerns are certainly entitled to express their views.”
Despite heightened criticism on the public stage, Silicon Valley has come to not only accept, but embrace defense tech since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s one of the hottest sectors around right now, with companies like drone startup Anduril garnering a $30.5 billion valuation in the private markets.
Indeed, tech companies used to shy away from defense contracts. But under the Trump Administration, there’s been a tidal shift. Meta teamed up with Anduril to start working on helmet and headset projects for the U.S. military. Numerous LLM companies, including OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic, started working with the Department of Defense on national security. Even Google, which famously stopped working with the government in 2018 after internal upheaval from its employees, has gotten into the military business.
In some ways, Palantir—and SpaceX, too—have been a catalyst for the shift. Palantir had initially been rejected from top Silicon Valley venture capital firms when the founders tried to raise initial capital, as Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins both famously passed on the investment. Cofounder Thiel ended up putting in much of his own money and raising capital from former officials from President George W. Bush’s administration as well as the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel.
Now, with Thiel protegee J.D. Vance as Vice President of the United States, and a defense-tech-friendly White House in charge, the company has access to the inner circle at the highest levels of power. And Karp, who pens a “letter to shareholders” that’s published on Palantir’s site in English, German, and French each quarter alongside the financial results, has a lot of thoughts to share. “The United States is not, and should not be permitted to become, a soft compromise and amalgam of global values and tastes,” Karp wrote in his most recent letter, referencing a 1943 work by C.S. Lewis which describes “men without chests.”
“Such men without chests,” Karp says, “promise to shepherd us forward yet lack much substance and content, even a flicker of an animating worldview or belief structure, other than their own self-preservation and advancement.” For now, at least, Karp’s worldview and Palantir’s business seem to be defying the critics, the haters, and the chestless.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Andrew Caballero-Reynolds—Getty Images
The new “replacement” pay package that Tesla unveiled for Elon Musk on Aug. 3 marks a big improvement over its predecessor, for a basic reason. It guarantees what the previous version left open—the very real possibility that if Tesla’s stock takes a giant roundtrip back to the price where they gave Musk that huge slug, shareholders get nothing but dilution for the directors’ largesse. And Musk still holds shares worth billions.
Recall that in 2024, in response to a lawsuit from the EV maker’s shareholders, the Delaware courts invalidated the famous giga-grant approved in January of 2018. Musk and the company appealed the ruling, and the decision is now on appeal. The Tesla board stepped in to ensure that if the Tesla side loses, the CEO will get something similar to the numbers he’d sacrifice. But this time, they’re attaching a series of wise conditions absent the first time around.
Naturally, the deal only applies if Musk and Tesla lose on appeal. If that happens, under the new iteration he’d receive a restricted stock grant of 96 million shares at a strike price of $23.34, equivalent to the figure when he got the gigantic trove at the start of 2018. At Tesla’s current price of roughly $309, those shares would be worth over $27 billion. Here are the restrictions: The shares vest on the second anniversary of the grant, or early August 2027, but only if Musk serves that entire period as either CEO or chief of product development or operations. In addition, he can’t sell any of those vested shares until five years from the date of the award, or Aug. 3, 2030.
The directors’ objective is obviously to keep Musk in charge, enhancing the chances he’ll deliver big-time on his promises for forthcoming, not yet commercial, robotaxis, self-driving software, and humanoid robots. But for Tesla holders who are starting to lose faith as the gauzy pledges come and go unkept, the plan’s structure, to use the cliché so often found in CEO comp plans, “aligns” Musk’s fate to their own far more tightly than did the first program.
The landmark original pledged Musk laddered awards of 1% of Tesla stock, each granted as the valuation rose by an additional $50 billion. The starting point was $100 billion—a multiple of its market cap at the time. If Musk reached the max of $650 billion, a number that seemed wildly improbable at the time, he’d amass 12% of Tesla’s stock. The framework resembled the process of opening a safety-deposit box; getting a new 1% required two “keys”: first, hitting the valuation bogey and second, achieving 12 of 18 combined goals for revenues and Ebitda. The top Ebitda target was $14 billion, and the highest sales figure $175 billion.
Within a mere three and half years—by mid-2021—Musk rang the bell. He first surpassed the $650 billion market cap max, and later scored all the Ebitda benchmarks and supplemented that accomplishment by reaching an intermediate sales bogey of $75 billion, good enough overall to satisfy the 12 operating metrics requirement. Hence, Musk got the full windfall.
The concept’s big flaw: Musk kept making big vows for incredibly profitable new products that wowed investors. That helped send the stock skyward, helping him achieve the valuation part. The revenue and Ebitda requirements were relatively easy to hit. So the combination of rhetorically inflating the stock price and not having to deliver fabulous basic profitability numbers won the day.
To be fair, Tesla’s cap at almost $1 trillion is still three times its level when Musk received his average 1% stock grant, and 50% above where he got his last piece at $650 billion. The problem: It’s impossible to get any idea of what Tesla’s really worth in the long run. And if it turns out to be mainly a metal-bending car company, or if the capex requirements needed to build out Musk’s visionary businesses, as well as heavy competition, make them marginally profitable, Tesla’s value could fall back to something like where it stood when Musk captured the then seemingly mission impossible package at the start of 2018, when Tesla shares traded at $23.34.
The original plan had a major weakness. Musk got his 12% of the stock upfront. So even if shares dropped all the way back to the original strike price of $23.34, putting Tesla’s market cap at $75 billion, he’d still own $9 billion in shares (12% of $75 billion). And the shareholders would have endured big dilution, and gotten zip for it.
But the new plan ensures that can’t happen. Is it absolutely impossible that Tesla drops that far? Not at all. Just look at its current fundamentals. The original plan only made sense if Tesla reached the operating goals stipulated to trigger the grants, and kept ramping revenues and profits swiftly from there. In other words, the fundamentals had to grow into the valuation. Musk was essentially getting paid for great things to come.
That didn’t happen. In the first two quarters of this year, Tesla’s sales ran at an annual rate of $84 billion, just above the bogey of $75 billion Musk hit a few years back. In the same six months, its Ebitda was stuck at $12 billion on a yearly basis, below the $14 billion number that unlocked the payout.
I recently wrote a piece on the “Musk Magic Premium” that calculated what Tesla is worth based on its current products, and the extra value awarded for Musk’s visionary pledges—that’s the premium. To get the core, repeatable earnings number for today’s EVs and batteries, I remove accounting gains or losses on its Bitcoin holdings, and subtract sales of regulatory credits that will probably now die owing to Trump’s recent pulling of penalties for the automakers who stop buying them.
For the past four quarters, that “hardcore” number is $3.3 billion. Imagine that Musk raises that figure at a decent 8% a year, so that net earnings reach $5.4 billion in 2030, the year Musk is free to sell shares under the new program (if it happens). Let’s also assume that since it’s a low-growth manufacturer, Tesla warrants a P/E that’s well above the auto industry average at 14. Then it would be worth $75 billion five years hence.
That result would put the shares right back near Musk’s strike price of $23.34. His big grant would be worthless, while under the old one, he’d still have stock worth $9 billion. Even if Tesla’s shares drop to around $50 and its cap stands at roughly $150 billion, Musk would make a lot less, around $2.5 billion. Yes, it’s a good thing that the Tesla board is forcing Musk to wait a long time to get paid. Five years from now, we’ll be able to see what all those promises are really worth. If they’re exhaust from a tailpipe, shareholders will suffer big-time. But Elon Musk will suffer along with them.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images
A little over five years ago, the Trump administration announced Operation Warp Speed to deliver a vaccine for COVID-19. It was one of the most stunning successes of Trump’s first term. Recognizing a crisis, the U.S. government facilitated a public-private partnership that likely saved millions of lives in record time. Now we must do it again. As a country, we have a strategic imperative to win in artificial intelligence and secure our supply chains for critical technologies, including communications, computing, and advanced military systems. Time is of the essence. Yet the Administration’s plans for AI and self-sufficiency are in serious jeopardy unless we have American-owned, leading-edge chip manufacturing plants on American soil.
US advanced semiconductor manufacturing has been withering for some time. The once-leading Intel appears to be dropping out of the race. Missed deadlines, poor execution, and a misguided strategy to retain manufacturing within Intel while also serving as a foundry for its fabless chip competitors resulted in a dearth of customers. Recommendations (including those from the four of us) to split off Intel’s foundry business and create a fully independent entity to supply its competitors, thereby giving itself a fighting chance, have never been adopted.
Intel appears to have only a few external customers for its current technology (called 18A), and the CEO recently said on July 24 that “Going forward, our investment in … [Intel’s most advanced process technology, 14A will] be based on confirmed customer commitments,” continuing a business model that has largely failed. Unsurprisingly, the CEO also announced the shuttering of its plans for German and Polish plants, further delaying its proposed Ohio plant, and a massive lay-off. More spending reductions will inevitably follow.
All of these announcements strongly imply a gradual exit from the chip manufacturing business, turning Intel into a fabless company over time. Given that Intel’s internal demand is no longer big enough to justify continued capital investment in leading-edge technology, this may be the right strategy for Intel.
Still, it is the wrong strategy for the United States. With Intel’s likely retreat from advanced chip manufacturing, America’s future and the future of its leadership in AI and all advanced electronics will be firmly in the hands of two firms: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) and Samsung, two firms headquartered on the other side of the planet. TSMC is by far the dominant player, controlling over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturing output. The Taiwanese chip manufacturer produces nearly 100% of Nvidia’s GPUs, which are the engines that enable AI. It also manufactures most of the chips for iPhones and 5G communications.
While TSMC and Samsung have committed to building more plants in the U.S., these will not solve the problem. Neither company will bring its latest technology here. The newest generation of chips must first be developed in a plant geographically close to its R&D teams. In the case of TSMC, those teams are in Taiwan; for Samsung, South Korea. The only R&D team that has been developing advanced generation technologies on US soil, fabricated in the latest generation U.S.-owned plants, is Intel. But as Intel retreats, America’s future in AI and other advanced technologies is increasingly reliant on a single firm, located a stone’s throw from mainland China.
To be sure, TSMC’s technological prowess is impressive. Moreover, its promise to invest $100 billion in Arizona is laudable. However, the fact is that we are giving TSMC too much power over the allocation of capacity, pricing, and human capital to drive AI into the future. In the case of Taiwan, business risk is compounded by the obvious geopolitical risks attendant to its status. These dependencies are intolerable if the U.S. is to protect its own economic and national security interests.
Fortunately, the Trump Administration has dealt itself enough cards to rectify this obvious vulnerability. The Administration recognizes that the United States needs advanced chip-making capabilities within our own country. To this end, by executive order March 31, the President created the United States Investment Accelerator at the Department of Commerce. It is responsible, among other things, for administering the CHIPS Program Office. Billions remain unspent from this Congressional program. Perhaps billions more can be retrieved from Intel, given its apparent surrender in the race with TSMC. In addition to these billions, the Trump Administration on July 22 also wrested from Japan a commitment to invest more than $550 billion in the United States.
With CHIPS money, Japan’s partnership, and government investment —either direct or through Trump’s recent executive order to create a sovereign wealth fund —the federal government has the opportunity to launch “Operation Warp Speed II” and put America back on the leading edge of chip manufacturing. Speed is essential: As Intel downsizes and lays off thousands of people, we are losing and will continue to lose the best people. Soon, we will be without a viable foundation on which to build a new, world-class American foundry, for which Intel’s assets are critical.
Here’s a plan:
First, similar to the first Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration should build a public-private partnership, where future customers (e.g., Nvidia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Google, Amazon, Apple and others), Japanese investors such as Softbank, and private equity, backed by government financing and/or investment, would buy Intel’s fabrication assets before the lack of investment and the rust of time makes them worthless and leave the United States dangerously dependent on a single manufacturing firm.
Second, the Trump administration has been very effective in persuading leading U.S. companies to invest in America’s future. They should be encouraged to partner and invest in a new American Foundry and to buy from it. Nvidia, Broadcom, Google, and others may have turned down Intel’s offering, but they cannot as easily turn down the opportunity to help create an independent, leading-edge domestic competitor to TSMC. American companies want (and need) alternative sources of supply, and this plan can provide them.
Building a new American Foundry for advanced semiconductors is the best strategy to keep the United States and American firms at the leading edge of AI and advanced electronics, and to ensure that critical supply chains are not disrupted by geopolitics, pandemics, or natural disasters. There is no time to waste.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images
As DoorDash reports its latest financial results on Thursday, it’s clear that the 12-year-old company has dominated the restaurant delivery wars in the U.S. over Uber Eats and Grubhub, owning somewhere around two-thirds of the market thanks in part to its prescient move into the suburbs that was supercharged by Covid-19 lockdowns.
That market lead alone has encouraged investors to bid up its stock price to more than $250 a share and a market cap north of $108 billion as of Tuesday. All in, DoorDash shares have more than doubled over the past year.
And considering that DoorDash finished 2024 with its first-ever annual profit, the San Francisco-based company led by founder Tony Xu appears well positioned to continue thriving in the U.S. food delivery business.
But if you look at DoorDash’s investment and M&A activity this year, you’ll see the signs of a company that has quietly laid the foundation for a much grander ambition beyond restaurant delivery in the U.S. And if it’s successful–still a big if–DoorDash will someday be known as much more central to the technological fabric of restaurants and other local retailers around the globe than it is today.
In May, the company announced a double whammy of two proposed acquisitions: one, a nearly $4 billion deal for Deliveroo, which would give DoorDash a Top 3 meal delivery business in the UK, and a combined presence in more than 40 countries – with the intent of turning DoorDash’s core restaurant delivery operation into a truly global one (DoorDash previously acquired Finland-based Wolt in 2022 for around $8 billion in an all-stock deal.)
The other acquisition was a $1.2 billion deal for the hospitality software company SevenRooms, which makes software products aimed at helping restaurants, hotels, and other hospitality businesses manage bookings, reservations, and their customer relationships. The decision to buy SevenRooms was led by Parisa Sadrzadeh, a former rising star at Amazon whose mandate when hired at DoorDash last year was to expand the company’s suite of software tools, called DoorDash Commerce Platform, that help brick-and-mortar restaurants and retailers grow and manage their businesses inside their physical locations in addition to any delivery operations.
“While DoorDash solved a massive problem for merchants during the pandemic…introducing a delivery capability to many who had never considered doing it before,” Sadrzadeh told Fortune in May, “[another] challenge ended up being how do you grow my actual volume in my physical store because those are my most profitable consumers.”
Weeks after announcing the pair of May acquisitions, DoorDash continued the buying spree by announcing a $175 million acquisition of the advertising technology startup Symbiosys, which is designed to help brands and retailers who advertise on the DoorDash app also reach DoorDash customers on other platforms around the web. DoorDash said that its ad business crossed $1 billion in annualized revenue in 2024. Online advertising businesses have increasingly become key profit engines for online retailers and marketplaces. While DoorDash doesn’t break out financial results for its ad business, analysts have estimated that it carries a much larger profit margin than its core delivery business.
In the background, DoorDash has continued to aggressively go after other types of consumer spending too, signing delivery partnerships with retailers big and small across grocery, pharmacy, pet, sporting goods, and alcohol categories too.
Taken together, DoorDash is laying out an ambitious vision – it’ll take time to judge if it’s too ambitious and distracting or as prescient as its suburban delivery move – to become a much more comprehensive technology player to restaurants and other brick-and-mortar retailers across the globe. At the same time, even with a market cap of $100 billion-plus, the company still has potential for considerable growth within its core business of restaurant delivery in markets around the world.
“If you took our oldest area of exploration, U.S. restaurants…we’re still single-digit percentages of the U.S. restaurant industry sales,” CEO Xu said on an earnings call earlier this year. “If you look at globally, that number would be even smaller.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
After trialing the service in Ireland and Canada last month, Spotify has officially launched its Audiobooks+ service in the US, Europe, Australia and elsewhere. An add-on available to Spotify Premium members, as well as individual users on Family and Duo plans, it adds an extra 15 hours of listening on top of the 15 hours available for Premium subscribers.
If you're an individual Spotify Premium subscriber, it's fairly straightforward upgrade. Paying an extra $12 per month for Audiobooks+ (on top of the $12 per month you're paying for Premium) nets you 15 extra hours of audiobook listening, on top of the 15 free hours already included in the plan.
Here's how it works if you're in a $20 Premium Family or $17 Duo plan. First of all, while those plans do include 15 hours of free audiobook listening, they can only be accessed by the plan manager. With Audiobooks+, though, other plan members can now pay for access. All they need to do is ask the plan manager to add the Audiobooks+ option, again for $12 per month, and they'll gain 15 hours of listening. The plan manager can also purchase a $13.00 one-time 10-hour top-up (for themselves or other plan members) in order to finish a book.
Spotify has gradually expanded its Audiobooks content offerings over the last year or two, having recently added book publisher Bloomsbury. The company also offers an audiobook-only subscription plan priced at $10 per month for 15 hours of listening. Depending on the audiobook, however, it may be cheaper just to buy it outright than topping up your Spotify account if you want to listen to multiple titles in a month. Along with the US, Ireland and Canada, Audiobooks+ is now available in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/spotifys-premium-audiobook-feature-launches-in-the-us-140010986.html?src=rss©
© Spotify
Spotify is raising prices for many international customers. The company just said that Premium subscribers throughout the world will be receiving an email within the next month that outlines the increase.
It hasn't announced which countries will be impacted, but did say that the areas include South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region. That's most of the world.
The company didn't provide specific details regarding the price increase, but did post a sample email in a blog post that showed an uptick of around $1 per month. The email notes an increase from €10.99 to €11.99 in an unspecified country. In American dollars, the new cost shakes out to around $13.90. The price for American consumers is still $12 per month.
Spotify announced this news after a disappointing earnings report in which it missed revenue expectations. This caused the stock to drop by 11 percent and for CEO Daniel Ek to announce that he's "unhappy" with the company's current performance.
The Verge scoured the Internet Archive and found that some countries have already experienced a recent price increase. The new subscription cost has already been applied to users in Spain, Italy and Portugal.
Ek has been branching away from the music and podcast streaming business in recent months. He recently led a $694 million investment in a defense startup called Helsing.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/spotify-is-raising-prices-for-international-customers-162540129.html?src=rss©
© Spotify
Lyft and Baidu have shed more light on their plan for a worldwide fleet of autonomous vehicles. After the first rollouts — which are earmarked for Asia and the Middle East later this year — the companies have their designs set on Europe. They're aiming to deploy robotaxis in the UK and Germany in 2026, as long as they get approval from regulators. The goal is to then expand the European fleet to thousands of vehicles across the continent in the following years.
Baidu is using its sixth-generation Apollo Go vehicles for this rollout. Once the robotaxis start operations in a given market, consumers will be able to book rides in them via the Lyft app.
Lyft says that it will leverage its recent acquisition of taxi company Freenow to speed up deployment of autonomous vehicles, given that platform's established foothold in the UK and Germany. The partnership between Lyft and Baidu, which the pair announced last month, follows Baidu revealing its plans to start testing Apollo Go in Europe later this year.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/lyft-and-baidu-plan-to-bring-their-robotaxis-to-the-uk-and-germany-next-year-152132114.html?src=rss©
© Lyft/Baidu
TikTok’s favorite camera is going to cost a lot more thanks to tariffs.
Fuiifilm has increased the prices on virtually all of its cameras and lenses, with prices jumping from $50 or so to $800. Included in the increase is Fuji X100VI, which has seen a big boost in popularity as TikTok influencers have talked it up. (There are more than 11,000 posts about the camera at present.)
The X100VI will now cost $1,799, a $200 increase. The company’s highest-end camera, the GFX100 II (body only) will receive the highest increase, jumping $800 to $8,299.
Fuji’s not alone. Canon has already raised prices once since the tariffs were first announced and has warned it could do so again.
Fuji is in a somewhat precarious position, though. Last year, the company moved its supply chain to China as TikTok love for the X100VI’s predecessor was just as strong, creating inventory issues. When Trump announced the first round of tariffs, however, it pivoted, bringing some manufacturing back to Japan.
Japan, subsequently, was hit with an additional 15% tariff.
The continued confusion over tariffs is causing all sorts of pricing whiplash for companies and consumers. It’s also causing economic agita. Stocks have yo-yo’d in recent weeks, with charts looking like a theme park rollercoaster track. And big financial names continue to sound warnings.
Danny Moses, founder of Moses Ventures and the subject of the book/film The Big Short, recently warned there are signs of stagflation in the market.
“There’s just so many moving parts right now that it’s really hard to decipher where you’re going to pinpoint,” Moses told Fortune. “Anyone can find a data point that says it’s inflationary, and someone can find a data point that says it’s not. So it’s just difficult. But bottom line … Is the [economy] going through a stagflationary period? It appears to me, it is.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Ying Tang / NurPhoto—Getty Images
Figma’s sensational IPO last week resurrected longstanding debates about IPO pricing and first day pops—an unsurprising reaction to the newly listed stock’s 333% surge in its first days of trading. As investors dissect the offering (and as Figma’s stock settles back a bit, falling 27% on Monday), other key questions have emerged: Will Figma’s debut entice other startups to jump into the fray, bringing an end to the tech industry’s IPO drought? And if so, who’s next?
There’s a long list of late-stage VC-backed tech companies with strong customer bases that Wall Street investment bankers would love to take public. Many of these multi-billion dollar companies, including Databricks, Klarna, Stripe, and SpaceX, have been subjects of IPO speculation for years. And then of course, there’s the crop of richly valued AI startups, from OpenAI and Anthropic, to Elon Musk’s xAI.
Those companies will likely continue to be in the spotlight, but in conversations I had with several investors following Figma’s debut, other names came up as more likely to IPO sooner including Canva, Revolut, Midjourney, Motive, and Anduril.
“Having positive IPOs is a good signal for everybody,” says Kirsten Green, founder and managing partner at Forerunner Ventures, whose portfolio company Chime recently went public and experienced a 37% pop in stock price on its first day of trading. (Forerunner also has investments in public company Hims & Hers and late stage private companies including Oura.) “I believe we should revisit this idea: an IPO is the Series A of being in the public market–and having that really be a motivator to people’s willingness, and maybe even eagerness to go public.” (As if on cue, HeartFlow, a medical technology company, filed an S-1 for its IPO at a $1.3 billion valuation on August 1).
Kyle Stanford, the director of research on US venture capital at PitchBook, notes that just 18 venture-backed companies have gone public through June 30 of this year. This, he says, is a factor of policy uncertainties that translate to funding headwinds as well as the overfunding that occurred in 2021 that continues to stymie venture capital. “Figma hopefully starts to break the dam, but it’s been a pretty slow quarter,” he says.
Though Figma, which makes design software, is profitable and has a strong set of integrated AI capabilities, these qualities are not essential to companies bound for IPO success, says Stanford. He says that investors would prefer companies to generate a minimum of $200 million in revenue that grows at high rates and prioritize positive free cash flow over profitability. Having an AI story is also “very important,” unless the company is very high growth and profitable by wide margins.
Canva may be a most-compelling case since it’s a design company with similar fundamentals to that of Figma, said multiple investors I interviewed. Design collaboration company Canva has raised about $589 million over 18 rounds at a $32 billion valuation, higher than that of Figma’s at the time of its IPO. “Canva is a big winner when it comes to what happened yesterday with Figma,” says Jason Shuman, an investor at Primary Ventures. Shuman, who is not an investor in Canva, points to Canva’s $3 billion annual revenue and 35% year-over-year growth as signs of its business’ durability.
Others agree. “Canva—after looking at Figma, holy crap—they’re going to try to IPO as soon as possible,” says Felix Wang, Managing Director and Partner at Hedgeye Risk Management, who is not a Canva investor. Canva, which was recently valued at $37 billion during a share buy back, did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
Wang and others note that the surge in Figma’s price is, in many ways, not actually driven by Figma. Rather, the market is at an all-time high, causing retail trader demand for companies new to market. “They don’t even know this company, but they know it’s a new company,” says Wang of retail traders investing in Figma. “They’re going to put some money into it, and then, more interestingly: they’re going to show it off on social media.”
As Figma is to Canva; NuBank is to Revolut, reasons Primary’s Shuman. He looks at fintech NuBank, which is up around 13% from its early 2025 IPO and thinks that Revolut, which has a very similar business model, could copycat. Revolut told Fortune in a statement: “our focus is not on if or when we IPO, but on continuing to expand the business, building new products, and providing better and cheaper services to serve our growing global customer base.”
Another potential IPO candidate in the near-future is chipmaker Cerebras, says Primary’s Shuman, who invests in vertical AI, B2B, SMB and finance and defense companies but has no stake in Cerebras or Revolut. (Cerebras filed an S-1 in September 2024 but its IPO was delayed by regulators concerned about a $335 million investment by UAE-based G42. Now, it’s been cleared by regulators for a public market listing, but the company has held off on an IPO as it fundraises $1 billion, reports The Information.)
Many companies, including the largest and hottest private company OpenAI (which just nabbed a $300 billion valuation, per the New York Times), have significant incentives to remain private. This is because they can avoid public scrutiny that arises from disclosures required of public companies and have access to significant private capital for liquidity infusions that are often essential.
Yet, the fact that behemoths like OpenAI, Stripe ($91 billion valuation) and SpaceX ($400 billion valuation) are private may even be a hidden cost for the public market. “I’m going to get philosophical,” says Forerunner’s Green. “Part of the public market was created so the broader population could participate in the economy and in the growth of the economy; it wasn’t meant to sit in a few people’s hands.”
One behemoth may be entering the stock market limelight. Anduril, the defense tech company that nabbed a $30.5 billion valuation on its Series G, has incentives to remain private due to the nature of its business. But Pitchbook’s Stanford predicts it to be the next tech IPO. In addition to Anduril’s CEO announcing it will “definitely” become publicly traded, its value proposition is core to Trump Administration priorities in security and defense, which could make it a hot pick for investors, Stanford reasons.
“Other than that,” he says the list of potential IPO candidates these days is long: “There’s probably about 300 other companies that it could be.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
© Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Of all the new iOS 26 features that Apple previewed at WWDC in June, AirPods updates were only briefly mentioned. Studio-quality audio recording and improved call clarity got top billing, while the addition of a camera remote control was also quickly discussed. However, when the beta software arrived last week, it turned out there were actually more features than described at the event, making this a meatier update for Apple’s recent AirPods than initially indicated. I’ve spent some time testing all of the new tools, so here’s what you can expect when you decide to use them.
All of these updates are available for AirPods that have the H2 chip. Those include AirPods 4, AirPods 4 with ANC and AirPods Pro 2. You’ll have to download the public betas of both iOS 26 and the latest AirPods firmware to use these features. If you’re not feeling adventurous, all of these items will arrive this fall when the final versions of Apple’s OS updates roll out. That’s likely to happen for iOS and AirPods in early September, around the time the new crop of iPhones debuts.
Apple may have framed the voice quality improvements on its AirPods as a boost for creators, but I’d argue the upgrade will be a welcome change for all. Sure, people who create content will benefit considerably from what Apple calls “studio-quality audio recording,” but the improved performance in noisy environments is something anyone will appreciate.
The company hasn’t offered much detail on exactly what it did to produce higher-quality audio, only describing the change in an initial press release as the result of a mix of the AirPods’ H2 chip, beamforming microphones and computational audio. That last update is likely doing the heavy lifting here, assisted by Apple’s audio chip, of course. I asked Apple for more specifics, but have yet to hear back.
Improved audio recording is available across iPhones, iPads and Macs, working in apps like Camera, Voice Memos, Messages (for dictation), Webex and more. Apple also says there’s upgraded vocal sound quality for calls, offering “more natural vocal texture and clarity” for Phone, FaceTime and other CallKit-enabled apps. As the voice upgrades are the most notable new features, I was eager to test them, and have spent the last several weeks doing just that (via the developer beta).
If you’re recording in a quiet room, you’ll notice that enhanced texture and clarity Apple promised. In my samples captured in Voice Memos, there’s not a huge difference between new and old firmware, but there is a noticeable one. The bigger improvement came when I moved to a noisy spot. Here, Apple dialed back its noise suppression in favor of voice clarity. While you’ll hear the slight roar of background noise in my audio clip, I actually sound better overall. That’s a trade I’ll bet many users will gladly make over the highly processed, digital-sounding results AirPods used to give us in less-than-ideal surroundings.
I also noticed that both of my samples with the new software were captured with a 48kHz sample rate. This isn’t new for AirPods audio recording/quality per se, but before this update some of my clips were still 24kHz — like my noisy sample with the old firmware. It seems like Apple is now defaulting to 48kHz as part of the overall sound boost, but that’s currently unclear and is something else I’ve asked the company for more info about.
The less exciting, but equally handy update for AirPods that Apple announced at WWDC is the addition of a camera remote control. Since newer AirPods have either force sensors or touch controls on their stems, the company saw fit to let you use those to take a photo or start and stop video recording. All of these tasks are done with either one press or a press and hold (you select which one you prefer when you enable the camera remote function).
For photos, you get a three-second countdown before your device snaps the picture. This gives you ample time to put your hand down after pressing the AirPods stem so you don’t ruin the selfie. For video, there’s no countdown, but there is a second or two delay before the recording starts. So, if you’re quick about it, you can get your hand away from your ear before showtime. However, you’ll still have to reach for an AirPod or your phone when the time comes to stop recording, so there will be some editing to do there. This all works well, but just remember you have to enable the camera remote feature as it’s not activated by default after the firmware update.
Most AirPods users have probably fallen asleep with one or both of the earbuds in their ears. Apple’s update will add automatic pausing when you’ve dozed off to help you not miss much of your TV show or podcast you were watching or listening to. However, it’s unclear how this works. All we know is it’s a simple on-or-off switch, and it’s disabled by default. Some have speculated that it uses sleep data from the Apple Watch, but that hasn’t been confirmed. Since AirPods have accelerometers, it’s possible the feature may rely on detecting movement, but I’ve asked for a firm answer on what’s going on here.
Another item on the list of AirPods updates is automatic switching for CarPlay. This is supposed to seamlessly transfer the audio to your car’s infotainment system from the earbuds when your phone connects to your vehicle. Again, there hasn’t been much discussion of this, and my attempts to trigger it were unsuccessful. That may be due to the fact that it requires wireless CarPlay, but I’m not seeing specific options for this in my AirPods settings. I’m waiting for more info from Apple on this feature too, and hopefully I’ll have more details to add to my observations soon.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/headphones/ios-26-updates-for-airpods-preview-enhanced-audio-recording-camera-remote-and-more-173036046.html?src=rss©
© Billy Steele for Engadget
Last week, social network Tea experienced a data breach that exposed personal information for its users. The dating safety app for women said at the time that "there is no evidence to suggest that current or additional user data was affected." However, 404 Media reports that the problem is bigger than originally stated. The site credits independent security researcher Kasra Rahjerdi, who found that content from the platform as recent as last week has been exposed.
Additionally, this source claims that the compromised information could allow hackers to view messages between Tea users. DMs might include other sensitive information, such as personal phone numbers, discussions of cheating and experience obtaining abortions.
"As part of our ongoing investigation into the cybersecurity incident involving the Tea App, we have recently learned that some direct messages (DMs) were accessed as part of the initial incident," a spokesperson for the company told Engadget. "Out of an abundance of caution, we have taken the affected system offline. At this time, we have found no evidence of access to other parts of our environment." In addition, Tea said it will offer them free identity protection to users whose personal information was involved in the breach.
Tea's security issues come during a surge in popularity. The app allows women to anonymously share personal stories about their dating experience, with the intended goal of letting others know if the men they are meeting might be a risk to their personal safety, were engaged in catfishing, or were already in a relationship.
Update, July 29, 2025, 1:08PM ET: Added statement from Tea.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/data-breach-at-tea-reportedly-contains-images-and-dms-from-last-week-224823984.html?src=rss©
© Apple App Store
Earlier this year, Google rolled out AI Mode to Search users in the US. Now, the notoriously inaccurate "tool" is coming to the UK. While Google's AI overviews have been available in the UK since last summer, AI Mode provides more conversational responses and fewer links to other pages.
Google touts AI Mode as a more intuitive method for asking multi-part questions or follow-ups. It uses Google's Gemini 2.5 model to detail how-tos, compare products or plan a trip. Instead of searching for something under the "All" tab, users activate it by clicking "AI Mode" and issuing a prompt with text, voice or a photo.
AI Mode uses something called a "query fan-out" technique, meaning it does "multiple related searches concurrently across subtopics and multiple data sources and then brings those results together." However, there's two issues: The possibility of hallucinations — which Google admits to — and a reduction in click through rates. Both have occurred with AI Overviews on Google Search.
A new Pew Research Center report found that users who receive an AI summary after their search click on a traditional result almost 50 percent less (8 percent of the time, compared to 15 percent). On top of that, only one percent of users clicked on the link provided within the AI summary. This pattern can cause problems both for website traffic and for ensuring that AI-generation information is accurate.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-searchs-ai-mode-is-rolling-out-in-the-uk-110011893.html?src=rss©
The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act took effect on July 25th. Among other provisions, the new law makes websites responsible for protecting UK children from content deemed harmful, like pornography or the promotion of eating disorders. This has resulted in many of the most-used websites, including Pornhub, X and Reddit, either putting up or planning to put up age verification barriers to restrict access by minors.
Age-restricting laws put broadly popular websites in a difficult position. Sites like Reddit that rely on user-generated content have no good way of making sure nobody under 18 ever sees restricted material anywhere on the platform, so it's usually simpler to just ban minors altogether. But this creates a knock-on problem: underage users relying on unvetted free virtual private networks (VPNs) to get back on their favorite platforms.
UK residents are using VPNs to change their apparent locations to other countries and circumvent the Online Safety Act. In the few days since the law went into force, five of the 10 most-downloaded free apps in the UK have been VPNs. We like two of the five, Proton VPN and NordVPN, but NordVPN does not have a free plan — just a seven-day free trial, after which you have to pay. The other three are unvetted, untested and suspiciously generic (VPN Super Unlimited Proxy, FreeVPN.org and Unlimited VPN Proxy).
When you use a VPN, all your web traffic goes through one of the VPN's servers before moving on to its ultimate destination. Every time you connect, you're trusting the VPN not to abuse its access to your information, and some VPNs unfortunately abuse that trust. A free VPN is generally safe if it's supported by paid subscriptions, like Proton is. If there is no paid tier, or the free tier comes with no restrictions, you have to ask yourself where the money is coming from.
The saying that "if the product is free, then the real product is you" holds true here. For example, Hola VPN admits in its terms of service that its sister company Bright Data can sell free users' residential IPs as proxy servers, and Hotspot Shield was the subject of an FTC complaint in 2017 that charged it with providing personally identifiable information to advertisers. And one of the services on the UK's top 10 list, FreeVPN.org, has no address on its website and a frighteningly sparse privacy policy.
Malware is the other significant risk. A 2016 study analyzed 283 Android apps with VPN capability, and found malware in 38% of them. Nor has the threat diminished in the 10 years since — just this year, threat analysts at CYFIRMA reported on a free VPN shared on GitHub being used as a malware vector.
In the end, a fully free VPN has no real reason to protect you or your rights, and every incentive to milk you for profit. Whatever you choose to do with a VPN, make sure you're picking one that will keep you save without exploiting you. Green flags include a clear pricing structure, audits from independent firms in the last three years, a specific physical location on the VPN's website and a thorough privacy policy. Some trustworthy free VPNs include the aforementioned Proton VPN, plus hide.me, TunnelBear and Windscribe.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/vpn/vpns-are-booming-in-the-uk-after-age-restriction-laws-but-free-options-carry-big-risks-060036636.html?src=rss©
© Steve Dent for Engadget
Login
