Technology

During our latest tests of Turbo VPN's Windows client, we identified active IP leaks and misconfigured protocols that put users' privacy at risk.

Owned by Singapore-based Innovative Connecting Pte. Limited, Turbo VPN boasts over 500 million downloads on Android.

Although the provider issued a patch after receiving our initial technical findings earlier this week, version 3.6.0.0 continued to leak IPv6 addresses across its proprietary protocols (Lepus and LinkSentinel) as well as standard OpenVPN connections.

Following further technical evidence provided by TechRadar, Turbo VPN has deployed a second update (version 3.7.0.0) for Windows to patch the persistent IPv6 leaks. Our testing confirms that this latest build now successfully blocks unencrypted IPv6 traffic.

However, information regarding the app's proprietary protocols remains scarce, and one protocol (V2Ray) was quietly removed during the recent updates. When asked about its removal, the company told TechRadar it is "still checking" the protocol.

Intermittent IP leaks

Concealing your IP address is a VPN's primary objective. However, when we began testing Turbo VPN's proprietary protocols earlier this week on an IPv4-only connection, we found that our real IP address wasn't being hidden at all.

Despite the app displaying that we were "connected," every online IP lookup test we ran showed our real IPv4 address. We rebooted our machine, reinstalled the app, and used multiple independent lookup tools, but the issues persisted.

Screenshot showing IPv4 leaks with Turbo VPN connected during our initial tests on version 3.5.2.0 (Image credit: Future)

To confirm our findings, we installed the app on a second machine on a separate dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network. Testing on this setup revealed a distinct failure: while our IPv4 address was masked, our genuine IPv6 address remained exposed.

Subsequent follow-up tests on our IPv4-only connection also saw IPv4 masking stabilize, which highlights the intermittent nature of the initial build.

After we shared these technical findings with the team, Turbo VPN issued an update (version 3.6.0.0). In our testing of this build, the app successfully masked IPv4 addresses consistently but IPv6 addresses remained exposed on proprietary protocols and standard OpenVPN connections.

Given that most modern operating systems and web browsers favor IPv6 connections over IPv4, failing to tunnel or block this traffic left users on dual-stack connections exposed by default.

Following a subsequent update issued today, the Windows app is now blocking unencrypted IPv6 traffic while masking IPv4 addresses consistently.

Screenshot showing IPv6 leaks on Turbo VPN version 3.6.0.0 (Image credit: Future)Lepus: a VPN or Shadowsocks proxy?

Lepus is listed alongside Turbo VPN's standard VPN protocols. It is described as providing "excellent camouflage with equally outstanding speed and stability built for highly restricted networks."

However, during our initial tests Lepus operated in ways distinct from standard VPN protocols. Rather than creating a system-wide encrypted tunnel, it executed a local ShadowsocksR (ssr.exe) process that toggles Windows settings (ProxyEnable: 1) to run a local proxy on port 46288.

That means any non-browser data sent from your device — including background OS traffic, desktop messaging apps, and command-line utilities — did not benefit from an encrypted tunnel and was instead routed over a standard connection.

We asked the team at Turbo VPN how long this behavior may have been present for, but they did not reply to that specific question.

In our subsequent tests, version 3.6.0.0 successfully protected all outbound traffic in an encrypted tunnel and successfully operated as a system-wide tunnel for IPv4 traffic.

However, its configuration still allowed for IPv6 leaks, which means users on a dual-stack connection were left exposed. This is because the app did not enable any IPv6 virtual interfaces, assigned zero IPv6 gateway routes, and set no firewall rules to block outbound IPv6 traffic as shown below.

Screenshot showing IPv4 and IPv6 route table while connected to Turbo VPN's Lepus protocol on version 3.6.0.0. (Image credit: Future)The official response, and what comes next

After sharing multiple rounds of technical feedback with Turbo VPN, the Windows app (version 3.7.0.0) appears to have fixed the remaining IPv6 leak issues.

Rather than attempting to create a full IPv6 infrastructure, the latest version appears to have implemented IPv6 blocking at the client level. This forces all web traffic down the encrypted IPv4 tunnel.

However, detailed information about the proprietary protocols remains conspicuously absent both within the app and on Turbo VPN's website — a search of the company's official website yields no results for Lepus or LinkSentinel.

Beyond a brief descriptor on the protocol-selection tab, users are given no technical context about how these protocols route traffic or what security mechanisms they employ. Combined with the silent removal of V2Ray, users are left with little information on how best to secure their connection.

The company did not respond to questions about the lack of information regarding the app's proprietary protocols. In response to our initial findings, the company said: "The behavior observed in the Windows client arose only under certain network configurations, appearing to occur in a limited number of network environments.

"Following the points you raised, our technical team carried out a thorough review and implemented the necessary improvements in the latest Windows build within a short timeframe."

We will continue to test the product and update our full review in the coming weeks.

DDR5 RAM prices remain painfully high, making memory upgrades frustratingly expensive. And honestly, not every PC needs DDR5, and millions of existing desktops can't use it anyway.

Right now, the 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series DDR4-3200 kit is $210 (was $230) at Amazon. You get two matched 16GB modules running at 3200MT/s with CL16-18-18-38 timings, plus an Intel XMP profile for straightforward configuration on compatible systems.

Should you buy it?

✅ Buy the G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB if...

Your existing desktop supports DDR4 and you want to increase its memory without replacing your motherboard and processor simply to gain DDR5 support. 32GB will be enough for most heavy multitasking, gaming, and photo editing tasks, and the matched 2 x 16GB configuration provides dual-channel operation on compatible systems.

❌ Skip the G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB if...

You're thinking of building a new PC around a modern DDR5-only platform or already have 32GB of adequately fast DDR4 installed. DDR4 and DDR5 aren't interchangeable, so check your motherboard specifications before buying.

You should avoid mixing separate memory kits, even when their specifications appear identical, because doing so can cause stability problems.

The Ripjaws V Series includes two matched 16GB DDR4-3200 modules, CL16-18-18-38 timings, 1.35V operation, Intel XMP support, and a standard 288-pin U-DIMM design for compatible desktop PCs.View Deal

Why we recommend it

DDR5 offers greater bandwidth and is the obvious choice for platforms designed around it, but that doesn't make DDR4 obsolete overnight.

If your motherboard supports DDR4, upgrading the machine you already own can make much more sense than replacing other components simply to move to the newer memory standard.

For a compatible PC, 32GB of DDR4-3200 will be plenty good enough for most everyday workloads and games. More importantly, upgrading your current system will be much simpler.

This Ripjaws V kit provides a useful capacity, respectable CL16 timings, and XMP support without unnecessary extras such as RGB lighting.

Price context & historical value

The current $209.89 price isn't a historic low, but the bigger picture explains why. This 32GB kit was selling for well under $100 last fall before surging to nearly $285 earlier this year on the back of the RAM crisis. Prices have since fallen steadily, with $209.89 holding for the past month.

That's considerably below the recent peak, but still far above last year's pricing. It's at the same price at Newegg right now, and $240 (was $250) at Best Buy. Until the RAMpocalypse ends, you likely won't find a significantly better deal on Ripjaws V Series memory.

I recently highlighted a price cut on Corsair's Vengeance 32GB DDR5 RAM kit deal - and it stirred a lot of debate over the sky-rocketing prices of top-end RAM. This is a much cheaper option.

The Catch: What to know before you buy

DDR4-3200 is mature technology, so you're buying capacity and compatibility rather than cutting-edge performance. The 9% discount is fairly small, but also as good as you will likely find right about now.

Check your motherboard's memory support before ordering, and don't assume you can combine this kit with existing RAM without potentially encountering compatibility or stability issues.

Also consider these 32GB DDR4 RAM kits

Two 16GB DDR4-3200 modules with CL16 timings, customizable RGB lighting, XMP support, and aluminum heat spreaders, delivering responsive performance for gaming, content creation, and demanding multitasking.View Deal

This DDR4-3200 kit combines two 16GB modules with CL16-18-18-42 timings and 1.35V operation, delivering responsive performance for demanding applications, content creation, and heavy multitasking on compatible Intel and AMD desktops.View Deal

Built for demanding desktop workloads, this 32GB DDR4-3200 kit includes two 16GB modules, CL16-20-20-38 timings, and support for Intel XMP, providing fast performance for content creation, and multitasking.View Deal

Another 32GB DDR4-3200 kit that pairs two 16GB modules for dual-channel operation, providing plenty of memory for gaming, content creation, demanding applications, and heavy multitasking on compatible desktop PCs.View Deal

Sorting, managing, editing, and sharing your photographs is a job and a half, often requiring multiple apps just to get on top of the workflow.

I’ve tested several software packages that do a very good job at merging practically every tool you need into a single app, but what’s bugged me is they only cater to Windows users.

Which is why my interest was piqued by ON1’s Photo RAW’s multi-platform capabilities (well, for Windows and Macs - sorry Linux users). So let’s take a look at it.

ON1 Photo RAW 2026: Pricing & plans

(Image credit: Future)

• No subscription model
• You purchase the software outright
• Generous trial period, money back guarantee, what's not to like

The ON1 Photo Raw has a flash sale ending today (August 7), with 50% off - you can check it out by clicking here.

More and more companies have jumped to subscription plans - I'm never a fan of this.

Well, ON1 are having none of that, and its Photo RAW app is only available to own outright. Full price, it costs a very fair $100.

When you consider you can use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop for $20 a month, not only will you be saving money with Photo RAW after only 5 months.

The software also comes with a very generous 30-day free trial (email address required, but not your credit card details). If you purchase it and conclude it’s not for you, there’s also a 30-day money back guarantee. That means ON1 want to be certain you’ll only buy their software if you’re delighted with it.

You can see what's on offer here.

• Pricing & plans: 5 / 5

ON1 Photo RAW 2026: Interface

(Image credit: Future)

• Plenty of tools
• When all on display, you’re not left with much space for photos
• But thankfully you can hide sidebars at will

I found Photo RAW’s interface to be very well thought out, polished and designed. Perhaps a little too polished, as some actions and concepts weren’t immediately obvious to me.

Like a little hollowed out blue circle being a tick box, or clicking on a menu’s header would collapse or expand its content. But it just takes a few seconds to figure it out and then you’re flying.

There are numerous sidebars on either side, the thinnest one furthest to the left is contextual, depending on the module you’re in. Selecting ‘Home’ shows you some recent photos you’ve worked on, along with those available in recently opened folders. You’ll also find links to helpful tutorial videos.

‘Browse’ reveals the guts of your local hard drives, with every single folder you’ve ever created ready to be accessed, and also offers access to online storage from Dropbox, Google Drive and OneDrive

‘Edit’ is where you’ll work on your photos, and selecting that icon will also reveal additional icons down that sidebar.

If you’re ever puzzled about what a particular icon does, hover over it for a few seconds to reveal a tool tip popup window, complete with a short audioless video illustrating what it does.

When a tool is selected, a toolbar at the top of the interface will offer specific parameters for that selected tool. The other three sidebars can be customised - you can choose if some tools are displayed in the left or right one, or you can remove them from view altogether offering more space to the shot you’re working on.

By default, the large sidebar on the left is for your presets and layer work, while the one on the right is for your regular color correcting tools, and similar. A small sidebar on the far right contains options to share your work either online or by printing it.

• Interface: 4 / 5

ON1 Photo RAW 2026: Editing

(Image credit: Future)

• Tools are easy to use
• Many are made better with the clever use of complex algorithms designed to improve your work rather than supplant it

Now, to start, I downloaded a series of free RAW files from Signature Edits (check out the website here).

If you’ve done any color correction you’ll recognise all the sliders present in the ‘Tone and color’ section on the right, which allow you to make satisfying alterations to an image in next to no time.

But if that just takes too long for you, just above those sliders is a ‘Brilliance AI’ button. Activate it, and complex algorithms will do the necessary changes for you. But unlike many other AI features from competing software, this doesn’t need to be the be all and end all of the process.

Expand Brilliance AI to reveal sliders to enhance or tone down those automatic changes, including some very clever masking options to focus your changes on specific sections, such as people, animals, the sky, and more. You can also just go back to Tone and color sliders to make any further alterations yourself.

Adding Filters is as easy as selecting one you’d like and using one of its preset ‘Styles’. As before you’re also free to make manual changes thanks to the available sliders, if you’re after a more unique look. It’s good to know you can add as many filters as you’d like to an image.

(Image credit: Future)

When it comes to masking, Photo RAW has some complex algorithms ready and waiting to work for you, in the shape of Super Select AI. Clicking on that tool (in the thin left sidebar) lets the software analyze your image. This should only take a couple of seconds. You can then isolate a specific area of an image, modifying it while leaving the rest untouched.

The level of precision you can have with masks is quite extreme. For example, adding to your selection, solely focussing on small sections of your image such as a subject’s eyes, adding a filter to the entire shot, and then removing it for one or two specific areas. You can get amazingly detailed with your alterations.

And if that isn’t enough, you’re able to work with layers, just like you can with Photoshop, superimposing photos on top of others, masking areas, revealing others, adding text. Although to be honest, being used to Photoshop and the like, that section did feel a little too bare in comparison.

What you can do with Photo RAW is remarkably intensive, and it uses those complex algorithms it calls AI in a way that enhances your creativity rather than take over the process, and that can only be lauded.

Should I buy ON1 Photo Raw? FutureFutureFutureBuy it if...

You’re looking for software to organize, manage, alter and share your photos, love the idea of a perpetual licence, and appreciate AI being used as a clever and intricate tool rather than a replacement for your actual vision.

Don't buy it if...

You are too wedded to Adobe’s suite of creative software, or your editing needs are too casual to take advantage of the level of complexity and precision Photo RAW offers.

For more creative tools, we tested the best photo editors.

The rapid growth and evolution of AI technology has led to major shifts in how businesses of all sizes work - but it is also impacting their next big corportate move.

AI has fundamentally changed the risk profile of innovation, as it can expose companies and users to risk earlier, faster and at far greater scale.

Organizations used to be able to afford to delay digital transformation decisions and remain competitive - but now, competitors can use AI to exponentially accelerate while the companies which wait for exact certainty can be left behind before they even begin.

This all means trust is now a crucial business imperative, and organizations must tighten up governance, privacy and security to prevent regulatory and reputational risk - we spoke to Joe Depa, EY Global CIO, to find out more.

• Many organizations have spent the past two years experimenting with AI, but relatively few have achieved measurable business impact. From EY's perspective, what separates the companies that are delivering tangible ROI from those that remain stuck in what you've described as “pilot purgatory”?

Everyone wants to move faster with AI. The first question is whether they can move fast with trust. The second is how deeply they understand and can optimize the AI value equation.

Trust is what separates the companies getting real ROI from the ones stuck in pilot purgatory. The winners that scale AI successfully across the business tend to share a few characteristics.

They have trusted data as the foundation. Proprietary, secure and well-governed data is becoming one of the biggest competitive moats a company has, because it reflects its unique knowledge, judgment and expertise.

On top of that foundation, they have trusted processes and technology. Data has to be connected to real workflows, real decisions and real business outcomes. The companies pulling ahead don’t use AI to make old processes a little faster. Instead, they rethink how work gets done, where AI can create new value, and how to build governance into the way AI is deployed and scaled.

Then, most importantly, winning organizations invest heavily in helping their workforce expand their skillsets so they can use AI confidently. People won’t use AI if they don’t trust it, and if they don’t use it, they won’t develop the expertise to know where to apply it. That is why upskilling is so important; it’s how you turn employees from passive users into change agents.

Put simply, pilots are great for learning, but being able to progress to scaled adoption is what creates business outcomes. And scaled adoption can only happen when people trust the data, the process, the technology and their own ability to use it well.

That brings us to how to understand and optimize AI value. There’s a lot of focus lately on token costs, but token costs are just one element of the AI value equation. This is a major disconnect that we spotted early in our own business. We saw rising token costs and high-end models being used for low-value work.

In retrospect, it was an important lesson about how measurement priorities change as technologies mature. In the early days of generative AI, the focus was on getting people to use it, so organizations tended to view usage as an indicator of momentum. But now that generative AI models and use cases have become more sophisticated, our focus has shifted to measuring business outcomes.

So we developed a set of best practices to address that. We optimized model selection against the highest value use cases, trained our teams, and put governance around usage. Those strategies enabled us to bring overall token consumption down 60%, while bringing value up. We’ve formalized this in an AI Value Realization Office focused on governance, training and value measurement. The goal is to ensure AI is being applied to the highest-value opportunities and delivering measurable impact.

• There's often a tension between moving quickly with AI and putting the right controls in place. How can organizations build governance, privacy and security into AI programmes from day one without slowing innovation to the point where they lose competitive advantage?

People often think of governance as the brake, but the opposite is true: having good governance is what gives you the confidence to press the accelerator.

The companies getting it right are building trust into AI from day one, so their teams can move faster without creating risks they have to unwind later.

EY’s Responsible AI Pulse survey found that companies further along in responsible AI are reducing risk and seeing better business outcomes. Nearly four in five reported gains in innovation, and more than half reported revenue growth. Companies with real-time monitoring were also more likely to see improvements in revenue growth and cost savings.

People move faster when they know the guardrails. If employees have a safe, well-governed environment to experiment in, they are much more likely to try new ideas. But if they are worried that every idea could create a compliance issue, they slow down or avoid experimenting altogether.

Governance also matters technically. When controls are added too late, teams often end up with rework, technical debt or pilots that looked promising but cannot scale. Building the right controls early helps avoid that.

Furthermore, once AI agents start to take action, governance can no longer live in a document. It has to be built into the system itself: how access is controlled, how behavior is monitored, how bias is checked and how safeguards kick in when an agent acts.

That is the balance leaders need to strike. Move fast, but do it with trust built in.

• As AI becomes embedded in core business processes, trust is increasingly seen as a commercial issue rather than simply a compliance one. How are you seeing boards and executive teams rethink governance in light of growing regulatory scrutiny and the potential reputational consequences of AI failures?

Trust is absolutely a commercial issue. If customers, employees or regulators do not trust the products, systems or decisions powered by AI, they will find reasons not to use them. That can affect brand, reputation, operations and growth.

Boards cannot govern what they do not understand. That does not mean every director needs to be a technologist. But boards do need enough AI and technology fluency in the room to ask the right questions, challenge management and understand where the real exposure sits.

We are seeing boards move from asking, “Are we compliant?” to “Where are we exposed?” That is an important shift. Boards are starting to see AI risk more broadly in terms of enterprise risk, in addition to legal and regulatory risk. Agentic AI raises the stakes even more.

For boards, there are three practical next steps.

1. Build AI fluency into the boardroom. Boards need people who understand enough about technology and AI to pressure-test the strategy, the risks and the controls. This doesn’t mean that everyone needs to code, but they do need enough fluency and visibility into leading value indicators to know whether management is asking the right questions.

2. Require visibility across the AI portfolio. Boards should understand where AI is being used, what data it relies on, how material the use case is, who owns it, what resources are being consumed, and what controls are in place. The goal of all this knowledge is to help boards ensure AI is creating business value and that it is being governed at the solution level, the portfolio level and the enterprise level.

3. Make the technical controls real. That means AI-ready data, clear access controls, audit trails, model and agent monitoring, defined escalation paths and the ability to intervene when something behaves outside expectations. Of course, training is absolutely critical to drive adoption of these tools.

• Many businesses are keen to demonstrate they're embracing AI, but there's a risk of what you've called “innovation theatre.” What are the warning signs that an organisation is investing in AI for appearances rather than driving genuine business transformation, and how can leaders avoid falling into that trap?

The warning sign is when activity gets confused with impact.

A company can have a long list of pilots, demos and proofs-of-concept and still not be creating meaningful value. That is innovation theatre. It looks busy. It may even look impressive. But it does not change the business.

The companies getting this right are much more disciplined. They’ve moved beyond measuring activity to measuring impact on business value. They’re focused on which pilots created value, which scaled successfully, and which improved workflows, customer experiences, risk outcomes or financial performance.

The most successful organizations also establish accountability from the start. Every AI initiative should have a business owner, an investment hypothesis, clear success metrics and AI enabled training that focuses on deploying effectively. Without this, it becomes difficult to separate experimentation from impact.

If pilots are not scaling, leaders need to understand why. Is it a data issue? A trust issue? A weak business case? No clear owner? Not enough transparency or control? Not enough training? Those failure modes tell you where the organization needs to get better.

Disciplined companies avoid the innovation theater trap. Every pilot has an owner, a set of priority metrics and a decision point: scale it, rethink it or kill it.

Otherwise, you end up with a lot of interesting demos and not enough business impact.

• With AI regulation evolving across different markets and customer expectations around responsible AI continuing to rise, what governance practices do you think will become non-negotiable over the next 12 to 24 months for organisations that want to scale AI responsibly?

AI is moving faster than any one organization, board or regulator can fully keep up with.

That is why leaders don’t have the luxury to wait and see. They need governance models that are resilient enough to adapt across markets, because the regulatory environment will continue to evolve, and it will not evolve the same way everywhere.

Sovereign AI will become a much bigger part of that conversation. Organizations will need to understand where their data lives, how it is protected, who can access it, which models are being used and how those systems align with local laws and market expectations. That goes beyond a technical issue; it’s becoming a board, regulatory and trust issue.

The companies that get this right will focus on a few practical areas.

One is data governance and sovereignty. You need to know what data your AI is using, where it came from, where it is stored and whether it is appropriate for the use case.

Another area of focus is resilience in the operating model. Regulation will keep changing, so governance must be dynamic. Organizations need controls, monitoring, audit trails and escalation paths that can adapt as new rules, risks and expectations emerge. For example, when AI agents are deployed that can make decisions, take action and interact with other systems, regulators will expect organizations to understand how it behaves in the real world.

Lastly, they have an open ecosystem. No company can navigate this complexity alone. Leaders will need to work across regulators, technology providers, advisors, industry groups and academic institutions to separate signal from noise and understand where the market is heading.

Focusing on these areas is how responsible AI evolves from a static set of policies to an enabler. It needs to be designed at the outset into the ways companies manage data, deploy technology, work with regulators and scale innovation across markets. That is how you build trust and resilience at the same time.

• Looking ahead, do you think trust will become a competitive differentiator in AI adoption? In other words, will organisations that can clearly demonstrate robust governance, transparency and security gain a commercial advantage over those that treat these issues as a compliance exercise?

Yes. Trust is a business necessity, not a checkbox.

The irony is that trust can help companies move faster. When the guardrails and success indicators are clear, teams are freed to innovate with more confidence and less rework.

That is why responsible AI is a growth and innovation driver. If you can show that your AI is governed, explainable, secure and monitored, people are more likely to adopt it, they’ll be far more comfortable scaling it and, most importantly, they’ll be better positioned to scale, differentiate and create value.

That’s the real opportunity: the confidence to move fast in a way everyone, from boards to employees to customers, can trust.

For many, the release of ChatGPT in 2022 was transformative.

Difficult emails were drafted in seconds, complex documents that would have taken hundreds of man-hours to scan were checked in minutes.

But for some, whose livelihood depended on providing just the type of service that ChatGPT offered - providing copy, for example - 2022 was a difficult year.

We were in the latter group. Our company, Jacquard, was founded in 2015 - seven years before ChatGPT hit email inboxes and LinkedIn feeds around the world.

Jacquard’s basic offering was a platform that used natural language generation to write better email subject lines. Around 2015, we tried taking the technology to investors. They were skeptical. Intrigued, perhaps, but skeptical.

At that time, we were one of very few companies in the language generation space, and we felt it. It wasn’t all bad though - and we eventually got used to being one of the few players in the game.

Then ChatGPT launched.

Our offering, AI-powered language generation, was suddenly in the hands of millions. For free. The investor skepticism we'd spent years navigating disappeared overnight, and in its place: a gold rush.

Hundreds of startups emerged, many founded by people who'd never worked in marketing or natural language processing.

On paper, this could have been the moment it all went wrong for us. Instead, if anything, it only propelled us further forward.

Surviving AI

It wasn’t an easy few years, but looking back, I can now attribute Jacquard’s survival to four key factors: AI fatigue; proprietary data; user base evolution; and an outcome-focused approach.

First, AI fatigue. When ChatGPT launched, everyone rushed to build, and then market, a GPT-wrapper. If it was a gold rush - to take the metaphor a little further - then too much gold flooded the market, and the value depreciated fast. Fatigue was everywhere, and it set in quickly.

Stakeholders grew tired of sitting through pitches that promised something revolutionary but delivered mediocrity.

Instead of a one-size-fits-all solution, what we all saw was generic copy, off-brand tone, and outputs that, at best, needed significant human reworking before they were anywhere close to usable.

85% of brands now use ChatGPT, in some capacity, to produce their marketing content. You can find the exact same turn of phrase in the marketing materials from a multinational conglomerate, as in your local café.

Our offering - the ability to maintain a genuinely distinct brand voice across complex segmentations at scale - became more valuable precisely because the market had made the problem worse.

Which leads to proprietary data. We have 60 billion data points built up over a decade of real enterprise campaigns. Far from being just another wrapper, we had ten years of learnings that no newly founded startup could acquire overnight. We trained a prediction engine on that data - and could back up our promises to deliver increases in engagement.

Of course, not every business starts from this position. But proprietary data, whatever form it takes for your industry, is worth finding. It’s likely more valuable than you think.

An evolving userbase

Our user base evolved alongside all of this. The client conversation shifted. Early on - pre-GPT - every sales meeting began with an education: what is natural language generation? Why trust an algorithm with brand copy? How does machine learning actually improve campaign performance? Post-GPT, those questions disappeared entirely.

They were replaced by a harder one: what makes your AI different from everything else? And so the bar moved. Clients came to us already exhausted by generic tools, already aware that AI-generated copy had a sameness problem. We no longer had to explain what AI was - now, all we had to do was prove that ours was worth the switch.

Last, and perhaps most important, our platform was never built solely around AI. AI was simply the most effective route to our solution. The businesses that folded had built their entire proposition on the novelty of AI. Once it wasn't, they had nothing.

We had been working on the same fundamental problem since 2015, and the arrival of large language models, ultimately, didn't change what that problem was. It just changed the tools available to solve it.

What we know now, having been through the full cycle - from obscurity to gold rush to consolidation - is that the brands who came out ahead weren't the ones who adopted AI fastest.

They were the ones who were clearest about what they were trying to say, and had the infrastructure to say it consistently. That is a harder problem than it looks. It is also the one we have spent ten years solving.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best small business software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

As of writing, Spider-Man: Brand New Day has become the highest-grossing movie of 2026 by bringing in $1.155 billion worldwide during its first week in theaters.

I knew that people were excited to get their cinematic Spidey senses back, but I didn't predict just how well the new Marvel movie would perform. I certainly don't think it's the strongest superhero movie we've seen in the last few years (more on that later), but Brand New Day's different format choices are certainly helping its appeal.

It's understandable that we're lapping up cinema being a more immersive experience when we're paying out for it — just look at how well Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey performed in both its original IMAX 70mm format and in 4DX. But surprisingly, Brand New Day is the first feature-length movie to be shot purposefully for another format: ScreenX.

But before we dig deeper into that what actually means, I come bearing a warning. Unless you're specifically trying to see Spider-Man: Brand New Day in every possible format as a personal challenge, ScreenX is one to be avoided.

In fact, I'd urge to to pay out quite a lot extra to experience flying through New York's skyscrapers in 4DX 3D instead.

How many formats can you watch Spider-Man: Brand New Day in?

The full list of Spider-Man: Brand New Day cinema formats look something like this:

• Standard DCP (Digital Cinema Package), 2D and 3D
• IMAX
• RPX (Regal Premium Experience) or Superscreen
• 4DX and 4DX 3D
• Dolby Cinema
• ScreenX

Not all of these formats are going to be available to everyone, so let's use a local example. I'm based in the UK, and my beloved Cineworld membership means that I have access to DCP 2D and 3D within a 20-minute drive of my house.

If I'm happy to pay the travel fares for a trip into Central London, this also means that I can see Brand New Day in Superscreen (which is the British equivalent of RPX) and ScreenX if I pay an "uplift" fee on top of my membership's monthly direct debit.

Annoyingly, I've got to wait for IMAX as The Odyssey is still selling out most venues across the South of the UK.

Cost-wise, this is what non-members are looking at:

• Standard: £16.99
• Superscreen: £20.99
• ScreenX: £21.99
• 4DX 3D: £30.99 (with an extra £1.25 for 3D glasses)

With my membership and "uplift" fee, my costs are this:

• Standard: no uplift fee
• Superscreen: no uplift fee
• ScreenX: £4
• 4DX 3D: £6

In the US, these costs will roughly look like the following:

• Standard: $16-$20
• RPX: $23-27
• IMAX: approx. $27
• ScreenX: approx. $29
• 4DX 3D: approx. $33

ScreenX: the basics

So what is ScreenX? Essentially, it's a multi-projection cinematic technology that expands movies onto the left and right side walls of a theater (like you see in the above video).

This creates a 270-degree panoramic viewing experience using extra ceiling-mounted projectors — I counted two for each side during my Brand New Day screening.

Unlike 4DX, you're not actually moving. Depending on which cinema you choose to go to, you'll have the choice of regular or luxe recliner seating. As I was treating myself for the purpose of this piece, you can guess which one I decided on (and it was genuinely incredibly comfortable).

Currently, there are There are over 430 ScreenX auditoriums operating across 40 countries worldwide, which means, like me, you might have to pay extra travel fares to get to your closest theatre.

Up until now, ScreenX has typically been used for "key action or landscape scenes." But surely this would change for the first feature film shot in the format... right?

Spider-Man: Brand New Day in ScreenX is an underwhelming experience — I'm not sure why Marvel bothered

(Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

In a word, no. Despite being filmed specifically for the format, Brand New Day still only uses its ScreenX capabilities in certain scenes — and I've got to wonder why Marvel bothered.

For context, this was my first time ever watching a movie in ScreenX, and I was fully expecting to be blown away. The novelty of watching scenes in 270-degrees lasted for all of a few minutes before I failed to understand what the impact of including my peripheral vision was intended to be.

Simply put, it felt as though ScreenX would hugely benefit from the inclusion of 4DX technology. Much like The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man ride at Universal Studios Florida, I wanted to be clinging onto my seat for dear life while being so visually immersed in flying through the air. The effect of ScreenX on its own left me unmoving, only wishing that I'd chosen a 4DX 3D screening across town instead.

The added insult to injury is that the 270-degree immersion didn't last for the duration for the film as I'd hoped for. The constant format changing between 270 to standard was incredibly jarring, and took me out away from the magic of the viewing experience itself, and even what was narratively happening throughout the movie.

For the travel sick among us, I interestingly found that ScreenX made me feel a lot more nauseous than 4DX ever has. Where I had worried about leaving my Kwells tablets at home before Odysseus (Matt Damon) got battered at sea in The Odyssey's 4DX screening, I hadn't even thought about it here — which was a mistake.

(Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

It's difficult to know how much of my ScreenX judgement is clouded by the fact that I thought Spider-Man: Brand New Day was merely... fine. Instead of watching the new movie in a standard format first before heading to a specialist format for a rewatch, I took the plunge with ScreenX first time around.

The CGI is often ropey at points, and I found the pacing of Peter Parker's (Tom Holland) re-reveal to MJ (Zendaya) and Ned (Jacob Batalon) to be tortuously slow. However, judging by my TechRadar colleagues' feedback, this was the overwhelming sentiment regardless of which format you watched the film in.

If studios want to film movies in ScreenX in the future, my advice is this: either use the 270-degree projection for the entire duration, or don't bother at all. It feels incredibly non-committal to wheel the technology out as a novelty showpiece for a few minutes before neglecting it, and it doesn't do overall artistry or the immersive experience any favors.

Instead, pour your efforts and resources into making 4DX screenings sing, or do a full Nolan and shoot entirely in IMAX (something which can be sustained for a film's full runtime).

A half-hearted gimmick is one that never works, but maybe that's a marketing ploy in itself — now I only ever want to see action-adventure movies in 4DX, meaning cinemas have secured the highest level of ticket costing possible from me.

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: one-minute review

There’s something deeply satisfying about the way Glorious goes about speccing its gaming peripherals. The company has a sharp eye for nonsense, and ruthlessly strips it out of the mice and, now, the headset that it brings to the gaming market. Behold, then, the GHS Wireless InfinitePlay, a wireless gaming headset featuring precisely zero RGB, built around normal-sized 40mm drivers, just quietly getting on with giving you multiplatform audio with infinite battery life and two mic options for $230.

With one swappable battery pack placed in the base station, it’s charging ready for use while you have the other one of the pair in your headset. Each one offers 85 hours of use from a full charge, and in case that wasn’t enough, a ‘guardian’ 45mAh built-in battery handles the changeover so you don’t need to turn the headset back on again after you swap. Handy.

That same ‘you won’t need it, but just in case…’ ethos is evident in the mic spec. You’ve got a detachable 70Hz-10KHz noise-cancelling mic for when you’re seated, locked in and ready to absolutely bellow at your team-mates away from prying eyes, and a built-in mic to use when you’re out and about using the Bluetooth connection to a mobile device or Nintendo Switch, and don’t fancy looking like an air traffic controller. Yes, it has 2.4GHz and Bluetooth 5.4 connections, swappable with one button press.

(Image credit: Future)

And that’s a very impressive feature set at any price, but especially for $229.99 / £199.99 / AU$239.99. It’s not even super clear where the concessions have been made to hit the price point. The audio quality is simply good rather than audiophile-grade, but that’s totally in line with what this headset is for: gaming. It’s trying to articulate useful audio cues, not trick your ears into thinking they’re in the expensive seats at an IMAX cinema.

Similarly, the construction materials are almost exclusively lightweight, brushed black plastic rather than anything showier, but that serves the sprightly 360g headset weight.

One area of that headset build and design I did run into issues with is the headband. Your experience will vary depending on your head size, but I found a degree of pressure that becomes slightly uncomfortable during longer sessions. This being an elasticated suspended band design, it’s possible that this may ease as the band slackens over time, but during the month I’ve been using my unit I do still notice discomfort.

Besides that, there’s very little to grumble about. The power button isn’t clearly labelled, and the Bluetooth button can easily be confused for it, but this is a one-time issue. Once you know what’s what, that moment of unintuitive design becomes moot and you can enjoy the fantastic feature set of these cans.

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: Price and availability

• List price: $229.99 / £199.99 / AU$239.99
• Swappable batteries like the Arctis Nova Pro Wireless, for less
• Packed with useful extras

The extremely competitive pricing of this package is certainly one of its biggest assets. Packing a dual swappable battery design for less than Steelseries’ Arctis Nova Pro Wireless is a great way to announce one’s presence in the headset market, and Glorious backs that head-turning spec up with a number of handy additions that justify the price point.

Namely, a choice of mics (detachable or built-in) and a ‘guardian’ built-in battery that kicks in when you swap between the rechargeable packs, along with some serious configuration flexibility offered by the base station and dongle.

In this challenging economy, to put it mildly, you’d simply expect to see this package priced higher. The construction materials aren’t comparable with ultra-high-end models like the Audeze Maxwell 2 or the Logitech Astro A50 X, but they’re sturdy and finished to a high standard.

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: Specs

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay

Price

$229.99 / £199.99 / AU$239.99

Weight

360g / 0.8lbs

Battery life

85 hours per pack

Compatibility

PC, PS4, PS5, Switch, Android, iPhone

Connectivity

Bluetooth, 2.4GHz wireless, USB-C wired

Microphone

16-bit/48KHz

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: Design and features

• Black and orange design is Valve-esque
• Prioritises light weight over looks
• Battery packs look like retro FPS keycards

There’s a duality here to Glorious’ headset stylings. On the one hand, it's extremely restrained with the brushed black plastic on the base station and headset, an elegant amount of orange contrast trim on the whole package, and battery packs that look like they’d unlock a door in a ‘90’s shooter.

On the other hand, the company’s fundamental branding is based on a joke that got old quite a while ago. The brand's name references the glorious PC gaming master race meme and subreddit, which worked as a self-aware joke about PC gaming elitism in 2008 and 2011, but in 2026 works… less so. Look, this could just be an age thing, but to me the GabeN-like brand logo and ‘GGWP’ text on the lower-left earcup feel just a few steps away from a ‘Keep out mom, I’m gaming!’ poster. Given that this headset works with PS5, PS4, Switch and mobile devices (there’s no Xbox version), it’s also just confusing branding at this point.

With that chiding out of the way, I do like the look of this headset. The orange trim feels Valve-esque in the right way, like someone very clever sat and thought about this for a long time. The base station is compact and smart, with indicator lights to show when it’s connected to your headset and the charge status of the battery pack slotted into it. Two USB-C ports to the rear connect to a wireless dongle which sits flush with the base station when connected, and a USB-C-to-USB-C cable to connect to your PC or console. A USB-C to A adapter is also provided.

(Image credit: Future)

The base station, dongle, cables, and Bluetooth connection create tons of setup configurations. You can ditch the base station and just use the dongle if you like, although that does mean you don’t have a spare battery charging while you use it. You can even ditch the dongle too and connect the headset with the USB-C cable, although I haven’t found a use case yet where that makes sense, since the built-in battery has a few hours of life even when both swappable packs are depleted.

The headset itself is pretty lightweight for a wireless model with a battery pack, eschewing flashy finishes for an all-plastic body with a fabric headband on suspended elastic, and breathable fabric earcups covering reasonably plush memory foam cushions. If you love that pulsing, sealed-in feeling of closed-back headphones like the HyperX Cloud, these aren’t your cans. They’re certainly closed-back, but the fabric around the earcups does affect the way you experience the audio from its 40mm drivers, producing a flat, detailed but not very low-end heavy response that’s reminiscent of Steelseries’ excellent Arctis Nova 7 and upwards.

I don’t get on with the physical control layout here, though. The location of the (unmarked) power button on the upper-left earcup threw me initially, and I think this control and its right-hand earcup mate are trying to do too much. Both are rotary dials as well as buttons, and while the left controls chat mix, profile swapping and battery status, the right controls volume and media controls. I’m all for minimalist design, but try navigating that while you’re concentrating on something in-game. It took me a couple of weeks to memorise how to perform all those actions.

Just one more gripe – the battery status readout would be much better if it gave you a percentage rather than simply an ‘ok’ or ‘charge now’. Maybe one for a future firmware update.

(Image credit: Future)Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: Performance

• Tuned for gaming performance
• Good suite of software tweaks
• Battery life true to claims

We all know by now that buying a mouse, keyboard, or headset doesn’t turn you into a Faze Clan member, and the gaming performance gains in the headset vertical are especially marginal. That said, if you’re listening out for footsteps in PUBG Battlegrounds and your 2014 cans with their 60mm grotesquely tuned drivers are too busy making a far-off gunfight sound like a drum and bass gig, you might notice a bit of an advantage when you update your audio hardware.

That’s why it’s important that these drivers are tuned with a nice flat EQ response. That means that they don’t strongly emphasise one particular area of the EQ spectrum, unlike the aforementioned early 2010s models with their ‘scooped’ profiles that boosted the lows and highs like a sound engineer at a Metallica gig.

Sticking with a roughly even volume distribution along the spectrum means that the GHS Wireless InfinitePlay gives all frequencies space to voice and be heard. It might not sound mind-blowing like Audio-Technica or Audeze drivers, but it’s well-suited to games that reward a keen ear, from competitive shooters to singleplayer titles.

I find headsets tuned this way really useful in racing sims too, where I need to hear brake lockups and tire squeals as early as possible, and as prominently in the mix as I can.

Over in Glorious Core, the accompanying software, there’s a welcome and well-judged suite of options including a sidetone toggle, EQ tuning including some basic provided profiles, mic settings like noise cancellation toggling, and several options to tweak the headset behaviour, like when it auto-powers down and whether it gives you voice prompts. I don’t love that it’s taking up 0.99GB of my SSD space to do that, though, and would much prefer a browser-based tuning app.

The battery life really is as long per pack as Glorious states, and swapping them out is easy while you’re mid-session. Just take the spent one out, let the ‘guardian’ battery take over until the end of the round or the next quiet moment, then swap in the other pack.

I didn’t run into any setup issues when I used this with PC, PS5 or Switch, and found that the dual-wireless is pretty rock solid. It’s less suited as a console headset, particularly the Switch, since it really needs the base station to be connected in order to keep a battery pack charged and ready. But as a multiplatform solution (marketing types like to call these ‘battle station’ setups), it offers a no-fuss means to switch between devices.

(Image credit: Future)Should you buy the Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay?Buy it if...

Running out of charge = death
This is a hilariously extreme three-battery solution to the age-old wireless dilemma, and it works.

You play on a few devices
The base station and dongle configuration options make this ideal for multiplatform use.

You’ve got a thing for retro shooter keycards
These battery packs are unspeakably satisfying to swap in and out. You’ll feel like Doomguy every time.

Don't buy it if...

You need Xbox compatibility.
There’s a long list of devices this headset supports, but Xbox isn’t one of them. If that's what you need, you should look at other models by.

Tighter headbands tend to dig in and cause you discomfort
There’s some adjustability to this headband, but not loads. If this is a frequent issue, try before you buy.

The old PC master race meme makes you cringe
When you build your brand on a meme that predates Skyrim, high cringe levels in 2026 are inevitable.

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay: Also consider

Not feeling like swapping in this wireless headset? Consider these premium wireless alternatives.

Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay

Audeze Maxwell 2

Steelseries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless

Price

$229.99 / £199.99 / AU$239.99

$349.99 / £329.99 / AU$520

$349 (£329, AU$649)

Weight

360g / 0.8lbs

490g / 1.1lbs

0.75lbs / 339g

Battery life

85 hours

80 hours

36 hours

Connection type

PC, PS4, PS5, Switch, Android, iPhone

2.4GHz wireless, digital wired (USB-C), analog wired (3.5mm audio jack), Bluetooth

Bluetooth, 2.4GHz wireless

Compatibility

Bluetooth, 2.4GHz wireless, USB-C wired

PC, Xbox (Xbox version only), PS5 (PlayStation version only), Switch, MacOS, iOS, Android

Playstation 4/5, PC, Nintendo Switch, iOS, Android

Steelseries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless
Featuring Steelseries’ unique dual-battery charging solution, premium looks, plus ANC implementation, the Nova Pro Wireless is a premium headset option with few faults. No Xbox version, though, sadly.

For more information, check out our full SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Wireless review

Audeze Maxwell 2
Goodness, these headphones sound great. The raw audio fidelity out of the box is benchmark-setting and the build quality is audiophile-grade, but Glorious’ model is in the same conversation for a lot less.

For more information, check out our full Audeze Maxwell 2 review

How I tested the Glorious GHS Wireless InfinitePlay

• One month of use on PC, PS5, Switch and mobile.
• All configurations tested
• Tested with shooters, battle royales, racing games and more

Something about the black and orange design of this headset and base station gave me an overwhelming urge to replay Half-Life 2 episodes 1 and 2, so that is where I began. Hearing those familiar audio files through new drivers is a good reference point, actually, which helps to suss out how good the GHS Wireless InfinitePlay is at positional audio.

I’ve also been playing PUBG Battlegrounds, Counter-Strike 2 and F1 25 with this headset, and putting the mic through its paces with amateur found footage horror simulator, Content Warning.

Since it offers an array of connection types – with or without the base station, wired connection – I’ve spent some time playing on all of them, across my PC, Switch, and PS5.

Read more about how we test

First reviewed April 2026.

• The Legend of Zelda Movie has reportedly found its Ganondorf and Impa
• Uli Latukefu and Dichen Lachmann are set to play the aforementioned pair
• The film also expected to feature Yvonna Strahovski and the late Sam Neill

The Legend of Zelda Movie just got a big cast update — and now we know who'll play the franchise's primary villain in Ganondorf.

Per Deadline, relative newcomer and Australian actor Uli Latukefu (Young Rock, Marco Polo) will play the imposing Big Bad in Sony's live-action film adaptation of Nintendo's beloved videogame franchise.

Deadline's report also claims that Latukefu has inked a multi-picture deal — a crucial detail that implies that, should the Zelda film be a critical and commercial success, Latukefu will return as the power-hungry Gerudo warlock in at least one sequel.

Dichen Lachmann will play Impa in The Legend of Zelda Movie (Image credit: Apple TV Plus)

Latukefu isn't the only actor who's all but confirmed to appear in The Legend of Zelda's big-screen reimagining.

In a separate article, Deadline reported that Severance star Dichen Lachmann will portray Zelda's bodyguard Impa in the live-action film. This apparent confirmation comes months after Lachmann was supposedly spotted on set with Bo Bragason's Zelda — the latter of whom was announced as the titular character in July 2025. Benjamin Evan Ainsworth was also revealed to be playing Link, aka The Legend of Zelda's male protagonist and hero, at the same time.

Furthermore, Deadline's sources have suggested that Yvonna Strahovski (The Handmaid's Tale) and the late, great actor Sam Neill (Jurassic Park) are also set to feature, though the identities of their characters is unknown.

Who are Sam Neill and Yvonne Strahovski playing in The Legend of Zelda Movie?

Sam Neill is best known for appearing in the Jurassic Park film series (Image credit: Apple TV Plus)

According to Deadline's sources, Strahovski will portray an unnamed queen. Immediately, fans' attentions will immediately turn to Princess Zelda's mother, who's never actually showed up in a Legend of Zelda game.

However, there are numerous other female monarchs who Strahovski could portray. That includes Queen Sonia, who — spoiler — is revealed to be Hyrule's co-founder in The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. This game, which is the latest entry in Nintendo's long-running and universally adored franchise, is the sequel to Breath of the Wild, which, based on The Legend of Zelda Movie's first-look images, many fans think the film is largely inspired by. If that's the case, it's possible that Strahovski could play Queen Sonia in a flashback sequence if the Zelda film incorporates aspect of Tears of the Kingdom's story into its plot.

As for Neill, who passed away from pneumonia in mid-July after a lengthy cancer battle, he might play King Rauru, aka Queen Sonia's husband. Other alternatives — in my mind, anyway — that Neill could embody in one of his final on-screen performances include King Rhoam, aka the last ruler of Hyrule, the 100-year-old Sheikh scientist Doctor Robbie, or a popular member of the Goron tribe, such as Daruk or Bludo.

Who do you think Strahovski and Neill are playing? Let me know in the comments. Once you have, find out everything we know so far about The Legend of Zelda Movie, which is now set to land in theaters worldwide on April 30, 2027.

• Microsoft has admitted it's automatically installing an app on Windows 11
• The OneDrive Photos app is also being deployed mistakenly to business PCs as well as consumers
• There are a few odd things about this episode, and it's an anti-consumer move that doesn't sit well with Microsoft's broader goals to make Windows 11 better

Microsoft is in hot water after an odd decision to roll out a OneDrive Photos app to Windows 11 PCs used by consumers (with it also accidentally deploying the app to enterprise systems).

Windows Latest reports that Microsoft "effectively" told the website that the OneDrive Photos app is being automatically installed on Windows 11 computers whether it's wanted or not.

OneDrive Photos is a separate app to OneDrive, and it's designed for photo viewing and organization (with a light editing element bolted on). However, it's plain user-hostile behavior to have this software stealthily piped to a Windows 11 PC and forcibly installed.

What if you don't want it? What if you don't even use OneDrive sync at all, and you aren't signed in with a Microsoft account on your PC? Tough — you still get OneDrive Photos, as Windows Latest points out.

Even more bizarrely, this app — which is labelled as a beta — is appearing on business PCs, which it definitely shouldn't be doing (it's only used with a personal Microsoft account).

Microsoft wouldn't previously comment on the appearance of the OneDrive Photos app, but at least the company has now acknowledged that it is being installed on Windows 11 PCs.

There's still no official comment on why business devices would be getting this software, but Windows Latest tells us that it "understands that the rollout to enterprise PCs was not intentional". So apparently this was a mistake, and one that Microsoft is presumably in the process of correcting.

It's worth noting that there's also been some controversy about AI scanning faces for a feature in OneDrive Photos, accessed via the 'People' option, but this is only active if you explicitly allow it to be turned on (it's clearly opt-in, in other words).

Microsoft has clarified that if 'face grouping' is enabled, it runs only in the cloud with OneDrive photos (not other images on your PC), and any data collected is removed 30 days after you turn it off. The company has also assured users that it isn't using any photo data to train AI models on faces.

Analysis: I'm trying to tell you now, it's sabotage…

(Image credit: Future)

What is Microsoft playing at here? I really don't know, but this OneDrive Photos affair is a mess for a lot of reasons, and as you might guess, it has rubbed people up the wrong way. For starters, business users are very unhappy about having a piece of consumer-targeted beta software automatically deployed on their PCs, and are busy writing scripts to remove it (like this one on Reddit for example), rather than waiting for Microsoft to fix its error.

This is a baffling move for consumers too, because as noted, even if you don't use OneDrive at all, you'll still get this partner photo app. You can't even remove the OneDrive Photos app without deleting OneDrive as well — so if you do use the cloud storage app and sync features in Windows 11, but don't want this extra Photos application, well, you're stuck with it. You can have both, or neither.

That latter situation will change, though, Windows Latest informs us, and Microsoft is preparing an update that lets you remove the OneDrive Photos app without needing to nuke OneDrive entirely. I should hope so, too, and it's confusing how this rollout of a beta app went ahead without that choice in place.

The broad reaction on Reddit has been heated to say the least, and this is just more grit for anyone with an anti-Microsoft axe to grind.

One Redditor said "I'm uninstalling Windows. Linux is a little bit of a pain but worth it." There are more than a few similar comments in that thread, whether they're from people vowing to switch to Linux, or those who've already departed for OS pastures greener: "So glad I left Windows behind. Good riddance."

Interestingly, there are reports of this app appearing on Windows 10 PCs in the Reddit thread those comments are drawn from, although I haven't seen it on my computer with that OS (while it is on my Windows 11 system).

The trouble with all this is that it underlines how Microsoft is a vast corporation where the various limbs aren't always moving in alignment with the same aims. While the right hand is fixing Windows 11 and implementing a whole bunch of crowd-pleasing features or tweaks, the left hand is still messing around with anti-consumer initiatives such as this. Did no one tell the OneDrive team that Microsoft is supposed to be going full-tilt to persuade everyone that Windows 11 is the place to be, and that the software giant has mended its pushier and more obnoxious ways?

Apparently not, and just as we don't want third-party apps for the likes of monitors pushed on us quietly, in the background, via Windows Update, we don't want to unknowingly get first-party Microsoft software sprung on us, either.

Sort it out, Microsoft, please, because this is becoming an embarrassing oversight in terms of the big (and otherwise commendable) drive to make Windows 11 better.

• Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier is free to keep on PC until August 13
• The game is a tactical third-person shooter set in 2024
• The giveaway comes as part of the series' 25th anniversary

Ubisoft just made a classic Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon game free to keep to celebrate the franchise's 25th anniversary — but you only have a few days to claim it.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier can be added to your Ubsioft Connect library on PC from August 6 until August 13 for no charge.

To get your hands on it, download the Ubisoft Connect application on your PC and create an account. If you've played recent Ubisoft releases like Assassin's Creed Blag Flag Resynced or other Ghost Recon games, then you likely already have one, and can log in using your existing details instead.

Head to the library page and then select the 'Free games' tab.

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

There you'll see a banner for the Ghost Recon Future Soldier giveaway. Click it to go through to the game's store page, and then hit 'Get it now' to add it to your account. You can then download and play the game.

Originally released in 2012, Ghost Recon Future Soldier is set in the then-futuristic year of 2024. It follows an elite squad of special-ops soldiers who use technology to gain an advantage in deadly battlefields around the world.

Tactical use of gadgets like drones and adaptive camouflage are keys to success, as is careful command of your AI teammates.

The game launched with a suite of multiplayer modes as well, though these were taken offline in 2022, which is unfortunate. Still, it's hard to grumble too much about a game you're getting completely for free.

The giveaway comes amid a flurry of other Ghost Recon announcements to mark the anniversary, including the release of a 4K 60fps mode for recent installment Ghost Recon Wildlands alongside the addition of a new story mission called Last Rites.

• Google product approvals are being delayed, impacting small businesses
• Experts advise businesses not to resubmit products needlessly
• Google has not yet commented on the issue

Local SEO professionals, agencies, and small businesses have been reporting widespread issues with new and existing product listings becoming trapped in Google’s approval process, leading to concerns over the upcoming back-to-school period.

According to reports, the issues have been ongoing since July 30 2026, with it being raised both in Google’s own support community and leading local search forums. Businesses from multiple countries have reported the same glitch.

Google has not yet publicly acknowledged the issue, frustrating businesses that are preparing for the upcoming busy period.

Small business reliance on Google

The issue highlights a wider problem for small businesses that rely on platforms like Google to drive traffic to their products and services.

With small budgets and time constraints, small businesses often rely on just a handful of sources to drive the bulk of traffic to their websites. For example, a small store may rely primarily on their Google Business Profile to be the main way potential customers discover them.

So, when issues like these occur and platforms like Google fail to address them, it leaves small businesses frustrated and making best guesses on how to proceed.

Don’t panic

Some businesses have reported continuously editing and submitting products in the hope that they will eventually be approved. According to some experts, this is exactly the wrong approach to take.

"Your first instinct is usually to keep editing the product or submit it again, hoping it will finally go live. Unfortunately, that's often the worst thing you can do,” says Thomas Phillips, Founder and Marketing Expert at DTC SEO Agency. “If this is a platform-wide issue, every resubmission effectively sends your product back into the review process. Instead of getting approved sooner, you risk resetting the clock each time."

For now, it appears the best course of action is to continue updating your site as usual and to avoid purposefully updating and submitting products several times in an attempt to get them approved.

Phillips also advises checking trusted SEO communities to see if others are facing a similar challenge before taking drastic action:

"When multiple agencies start reporting the same behaviour at the same time, it's usually a sign that the problem sits with the platform rather than the business.”

• New panel has two-stack structure with redesigned emissive layers
• The result is much better color reproduction and good brightness
• It's likely to succeed OLED SE, which is in entry-level 2026 TVs

LG Display has developed a simpler kind of OLED panel that should deliver a better picture and cost less to make or buy than the panels in current WOLED TVs.

Where most WOLED TV panels use a three-stack structure to emit light (or four stacks in the case of some more premium versions), LG Display's new design uses two. That, the firm says, will reduce production costs and improve energy efficiency. And it'll also deliver improved colors.

The new panel is designed to be used in mid-range OLED TVs and in computer monitors, making it a direct rival for mini-LED. But you can't get it just yet; although the new panel exists, it hasn't entered mass production.

You can expect to see the new two-stack panels in TVs such as the successor to LG's B6 OLED TV. (Image credit: Disney / Future )When two stacks can be better than three

This isn't the first time LG Display has made two-stack OLED panels: it produced two-stack OLEDs throughout the 2010s, but moved to three- and later four-stack structures to deliver improved picture quality and brightness. However, the more stacks you have, the more complex and expensive your panels become, and improvements in both materials and engineering have enabled LG Display to produce a two-stack design that wasn't possible a decade ago.

As LG Display explained to the Korean news sites The Elec and ETNews, reported by FlatpanelsHD, the two-stack WOLED panel uses a new blue emissive material and replaces the conventional yellow/green emissive layer with separate red and green layers.

That change enables the panel to deliver more accurate color reproduction, improving BT.2020 color coverage from 76.5% on three-stack panels to 82.5% on the new panel.

It's slightly brighter at 6500 Kelvin color temperatures, although it's a little less bright than WOLED at higher color temperatures. LG says it delivers wider viewing angles, too.

Speaking to The Elec, an industry source said: "If the next-generation two-stack architecture enters mass production, LG Display will be able to defend its position in the premium segment while expanding into the mid-range TV and monitor markets, where LCD and mini-LED technologies remain dominant."

As for when that expansion will happen, we don't have a definite timescale just yet: while the new panels are clearly destined for future LG TVs, LG Display hasn't said when it'll be making the panels available to the likes of Samsung, Sony, Philips and Panasonic.

For this year's affordable OLEDs, the key panel technology is OLED SE, which is the panel used in models such as the 2026 Panasonic Z86C (Z85C in Europe). That's brighter than previous entry-level OLEDs, but the potential downside is that the panel can be more reflective. There are various ways manufacturers can address that, but if reflectivity is a problem in your room it's important to read the reviews to find out what (if anything) they've done to reduce it.

Thinking of buying a new TV?

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

• Musk has recently been bullish about Starlink's potential as a rival to T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T
• However, T-Mobile's CEO sees satellite connectivity as complementary to conventional coverage
• As such, they think that Starlink's threat to mobile operators has been exaggerated

If you believe Elon Musk, then Starlink could soon pose a major threat to the US’s mobile operators, but the CEO of T-Mobile disagrees.

According to Musk in a recent earnings call, Starlink’s terrestrial cellular network will “probably” offer better connectivity and higher bandwidth than cellular providers like T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T. In fact, Musk even went so far as to say that he envisions Starlink will ultimately "deliver a majority of the world's internet."

As a result, Gwynne Shotwell, the president and chief operating officer of SpaceX (which owns Starlink), added that she expects the company to “acquire quite a few” customers from those mobile networks.

But in an interview with the Financial Times, T-Mobile’s CEO Srini Gopalan argued that “you’ve got to ask the question of ‘what is the gap in the market that they’re looking to serve?’,” adding “I always prefer starting these conversations back from the customer: why would a customer buy a new cellular service? Where do they go? What’s their differentiation? It’s clearly not having a broad network.”

An alternative or an addition?

T-Mobile has already partnered with Starlink (Image credit: T-Mobile Starlink)

Of course, Musk has arguably already answered the question of differentiation with his claims of Starlink having higher bandwidth and better connectivity, and indeed T-Mobile already leverages Starlink satellites to boost its rural coverage.

But Gopalan suggests that this is how things should be, with satellite connectivity being “complementary” to existing networks.

So it remains to be seen who is right here. A lot might come down to price, and whether Starlink continues giving the likes of T-Mobile access to its satellites once it has launched a rival service.

That service isn’t expected until the end of 2027, though, so T-Mobile and the US’s other mobile operators have some time to make sure they remain competitive.

Recently in Geneva, the world's largest forum on AI for Good, gathered around a simple question: how can technology best serve society? While the sentiment goes back to pre-industrial times, the conversation has firmly moved to algorithms. What about the machines that will come next?

Quantum technology has crossed a line. It is no longer a distant promise, but a growing portfolio of real applications. Quantum and quantum-inspired solutions are being applied to the simulations that underpin nuclear power, to protein design in drug discovery, and traffic forecasting in congested cities.

Quantum sensors are being tested for medical imaging, navigation where satellite signals fail, and monitoring carbon storage sites deep underground. These are no longer mere laboratory curiosities: they are increasingly emerging as working programs, with industrial partners and delivery dates.

For those of us in the industry, these developments are both timely and long anticipated. But they also force us to confront a less comfortable reality: the same machines that will one day simulate new molecules will also break the public-key cryptography that secures much of the modern internet.

By some estimates, up to 80% of the world's digital infrastructure is exposed. The world's digital economy - not to mention every AI model celebrated in Geneva, runs on encrypted data. Every health record or financial transaction owes its confidentiality to mathematical assumptions that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer will overturn.

Store now, decrypt later

The threat timeline is worse than most realize. Rather than waiting for when the machine arrives, the clock started the moment adversaries began harvesting encrypted traffic: the so-called “store now, decrypt later” approach.

Data that remains valuable for years, from medical records to state secrets, may already be beyond rescue. Nobody knows exactly when “Q-Day” comes. But those who harvest our data today have time on their side.

This is why quantum-safe security cannot be a footnote to quantum computing. It is the other half of the field, and it needs to mature on the same schedule.

Quantum trip-wire

Two defenses exist, and they are not interchangeable. Post-quantum cryptography replaces vulnerable algorithms with mathematics believed to resist quantum attacks; it is software, it scales, and it is the workhorse of the migration now beginning worldwide.

Quantum key distribution takes a different route: it distributes encryption keys using quantum states of light that cannot be intercepted without being disturbed. In this way, these schemes deploy a “quantum trip-wire", an eavesdropper reveals herself by the simple act of listening-in

Far from being in competition, both algorithmic and physics-based solutions have roles to play in tomorrow's networks. Serious infrastructure will layer both.

Neither of these solutions are theoretical. New post-quantum standards have been finalized, with contributions from research teams around the world. And quantum-secured networks are already running in the field: since 2022, Abu Dhabi has hosted entanglement-based metropolitan networks, like the ADGM Quantum Testbed announced in August 2025.

These are initiatives that bring quantum security to where data actually lives. Long-range terrestrial links, satellite connections and “last-mile” access networks are the next steps, extending that protection between cities and, eventually, across continents. If there's one lesson the field has learned from operating these systems, it's this: migration takes years, so the time to start is before the threat matures, not after.

Depth of capability

There is a broader lesson in how this capability is being built. A growing number of nations have chosen to be builders of quantum technology rather than buyers, developing the full portfolio of sensing, communications and computing solutions. From processor fabrication to control software, to the hardware enabling quantum networks: the word “sovereignty” is often heard as a synonym for walls.

But our experience suggests otherwise. It is precisely the teams that build every layer themselves that can contribute most readily to the global commons, from working with international standards organizations like ITU and ETSI on quantum-safe networking, to releasing open-source middleware that researchers worldwide now use to program quantum hardware, wherever it was made.

It is this depth of capability that turns a nation from a spectator of the quantum era into an active participant.

That should also be the model for the decade ahead. No single country will own quantum technology, and no single vendor should be the sole authority on quantum-era trust. What the field needs now is what the AI community showcased in Geneva: open tools that lower the barrier to entry, interoperable standards so quantum-safe systems can talk to each other, and honest engagement with the risks alongside the promise.

For years, the defining question about quantum computing has been when the machines will arrive. Increasingly, I think that's the wrong question. The more important question is whether the digital world they inherit will still deserve their trust. The answer depends on what we choose to secure, build, and share today.

Quantum for good does not start with a breakthrough. It starts with trust.

We've featured the best desktop PC.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

For years, cybersecurity was built on a simple assumption: systems follow defined rules.

Applications do what they are programmed to do, while people log in, are given permissions and access the resources they need. Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing that.

With nearly 50% of cybersecurity solutions buyers expecting AI to be embedded across the cyber stack within three years, organizations are no longer focused solely on protecting applications and access rights.

They also need to secure intelligent systems that can make decisions, interact with users and act autonomously.

AI can draw on models, prompts, context and external tools to understand a goal, make decisions and determine how best to achieve it.

As organizations give these agentic systems greater autonomy across enterprise workflows, the consequences of failure extend beyond generating a wrong answer.

A mistake can now disrupt business processes, influence decisions and trigger unintended actions across connected systems.

An expanded attack surface

Greater autonomy creates new points of vulnerability whenever AI is given access to data, systems and external tools.

Cyber threats, such as attackers manipulating the information AI receives or impersonating trusted users, can alter how it responds or the actions it takes. This could lead an AI agent to retrieve inaccurate information or approve unauthorized actions.

Traditional cybersecurity controls were designed for humans and applications, but autonomous agents don’t fit neatly into either category. Security therefore needs to extend further across the entire AI lifecycle: before go-live, during operations, and at every point where AI learns, decides, and acts.

Organizations need a unified security architecture that provides consistent visibility and controls across both AI and traditional systems, which makes it easier to identify threats, enforce policies and respond quickly when incidents occur.

Trusting AI safely

However, a unified architecture is only part of the solution. Businesses also need to ensure the AI agents themselves can be trusted. Like any trusted user or system, AI agents should have a verifiable identity, tightly controlled access to data and systems, and auditable records of the actions they take.

Without these safeguards, organizations risk creating AI systems that can bypass security and compliance controls because of design flaws rather than malicious intent. Security also cannot stop once an AI system is deployed. Unlike traditional software, AI systems learn from new data, operate in changing contexts and can behave differently over time.

Organizations therefore need continuous monitoring to ensure agents stay within defined boundaries and policies continue to be enforced. That includes clear ownership, escalation paths and kill switches that can safely contain or stop an agent behaving unexpectedly. Some organizations are also beginning to use "guardian agents" that monitor other AI agents and flag unusual behavior.

The level of oversight should reflect the level of risk. AI agents carrying out low-impact tasks can remain largely autonomous, while higher-risk activities - such as updating customer data, approving financial transactions or interacting with production systems - should have stronger guardrails.

Applying controls in proportion to risk allows organizations to capture the benefits of AI while maintaining security, compliance and trust.

Context as a security boundary

Securing AI also means securing the information it relies on. Context is what gives AI agents their power. This includes internal documents, customer information, business rules and previous interactions, helping agents understand a task and decide what to do next.

That also makes context a new security boundary. If the information an AI relies on is inaccurate or has been deliberately manipulated, the decisions it makes can be wrong, even if the underlying model is working exactly as intended. This is known as context poisoning.

Protecting against this means controlling what AI can see as well as what it can do. Agents should only have access to the data and systems they need for a specific task. For example, an AI assistant answering employee questions should not have the same level of access as one authorized to approve payments.

Guardrails must go beyond filtering outputs and extent to protecting the integrity of the information AI uses, ensuring it is accurate, up to date and appropriate for the task at hand.

Governance at scale

Technical controls are most effective when they are supported by effective governance. This requires a joined-up approach that brings together AI and traditional systems, with consistent controls across the business.

Organizations should also define where human intervention is required and who is responsible for the decisions models make. Oversight should focus on the activities that carry the greatest operational, financial or regulatory risk, supported by investment in the skills needed to govern AI effectively and maintain trust in autonomous systems.

The path forward

Ultimately, securing AI is about more than protecting systems from attack. Organizations need the right technical solutions, clear ownership and continuous oversight throughout the AI lifecycle. Trust depends on these elements working together.

The organizations that succeed with AI will not necessarily be those that move fastest, but those that scale it securely and responsibly. The question for leaders is no longer whether to trust AI, but whether they are building systems that deserve to be trusted.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best endpoint protection software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Microsoft temporarily rolls back planned Teams tool concerning muted chats
• The update would have made it easier to organize (and ignore) unnecessary conversations
• It's not known when the update will get back in progress

Microsoft has pulled an update which would have made it much easier for Teams users to organize their chats - particularly those which have been muted.

The company had revealed it was working on new built-in sections within Teams to house all the muted chats in one area, meaning users shouldn't be distracted or annoyed by unnecessary alerts.

However the update has now been "temporarily rolled back", with Microsoft apologizing for the "inconvenience".

A bit of a shame?

The move is a slightly odd one, as the description of the update makes it sound like something all Teams users would appreciate.

In its Microsoft 365 roadmap entry, the company said the new grouping will "help reduce clutter and keep conversations easy to find" - but also probably help lower stress levels for users plagued by alerts on chats they don't need to know about.

The change, which was in the works for users across Android, iOS, desktop and web, would have seen muted chats grouped together in a dedicated area, while meeting chats would have been able to be collected into a single section for quick access.

Microsoft had even added that "You’re always in control", as each section would have been able to be activated or turned off based on a user's specific preferences.

The new Meeting chats section would have replaced the Meeting chats filter, found at the top of the chat and channel list, giving users a much better insight to their conversations.

Microsoft hasn't given any details as to why the update is delayed, or when it will be coming back onto the workbench, so we'll just have to wait and see.

As mentioned, it's a shame, as Teams users no doubt would have welcomed any relief from the overload of chats. Slack already offers this feature, with muted channels and conversations hidden away if desired, so maybe Microsoft is taking extra time to finesse and develop the feature before releasing it to users.

After a fairly competitive preorder phase, the brand-new Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Flip 8 are all officially available. And while many of those pre-release offers are no longer available, several launch deals are live now at various retailers and mobile networks. I've picked out the best value options right here.

The official Samsung store remains one of the best places to go in the US, offering a hefty trade-in rebate of up to $1,000 or a flat $200 in Samsung credit without a trade. As for the networks, T-Mobile remains my number one pick, as it still offers a massive discount of up to $1,900 on the Z Fold 8 when you trade in and add an eligible line — that's the biggest rebate out there and one of the largest ever seen for a new phone launch.

The UK deals aren't quite as attention-grabbing as many of the trade-in rebates have been reduced, but there are some good savings out there on all of the new devices.

Again, the official Samsung store is a smart place to start, with trade-in discounts of up to £752, extra savings on larger storage models, and freebies when you bundle in some network plans. Meanwhile, networks such as Vodafone and O2 offer the largest trade-in savings, or you can get a free Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 at Sky Mobile.

I'll keep an eye out for all the latest Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8, Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra launch deals over the next few days in case any better offers go live. Hopefully there will be a combination of phone and plan that suits you.

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Z Fold 8 deals in the US

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to $1,000 off with a trade-in or $200 off without
Samsung's offer on its new Flip and Fold range include trade-in rebates of up to $1,000 for the Fold 8 and up to $400 for the Flip 8 — that's $200 less than the preorder phase. Still, if you don't have a phone to hand over, you can still get a flat $200 in Samsung credit when buying the Fold 8 or $100 with the Flip 8. There are also bundle discounts of up to 15% when buying other accessories at the same time.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to $1,900 off the Galaxy Fold 8 Ultra with a trade-in and qualifying line
T-Mobile's launch offer for the new Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Fold 8 includes a saving of up to $1,900 on the Fold 8 Ultra when you trade in — that will effectively bring the price of the device down to $100. You will need to add a qualifying line to your account at the same time, such as the Experience Beyond plan.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: get a Galaxy Z Fold 8 for $60 a month
The standout launch deal at Verizon is the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 for $60 a month on a 48-month contract — and that's with no trade-in required, either. If you are looking to upgrade, you can get up to $1,100 off with a trade-in, and even add a Galaxy Watch 9 or Galaxy Tab S10 FE for free when you buy a new phone or upgrade.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: get the Galaxy Z Fold 8 for $0 with an eligible trade-in
AT&T's standout offer on Samsung's new foldable line-up is this offer that can get you a Z Fold 8 for free when you trade in an eligible device and sign up for an eligible unlimited plan. You can also add a Galaxy Watch9 and Tab A11 Plus for $1.99 per month each with a new line, and get $200 off a new line when you order online.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: get an extra $400 with a trade-in, plus a $350 Amazon Gift Card
One of the stronger options if you just want to buy a device outright is at Amazon. As well as a savings bonus of up to $400 when you trade-in, you also get a gift card worth up to $350 with Samsung's latest foldable handsets. There's also a bundle that includes a pair of Galaxy Buds 4 Pro with a 10% discount.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Z Fold 8 deals in the UK

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to £752 off with a trade-in, and an extra savings on larger storage models
The launch offer for the Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Fold 8 range at the official Samsung store includes a discount of up to £752 when you trade-in and an extra saving of up to £170 on larger 512GB or 1TB storage models. Contract options are also available from £10 per month and from £249 upfront. Finally, six months of Google AI Pro are included with all handsets.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: from £51 per month, up to £528 off with a trade-in
Offers for the Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 start at £47 per month at EE on the 125GB Essential package. If you have a phone to trade in, you can also get a saving of up to £528 across all three devices, plus there's the option to add a Galaxy Watch 9 and save £288.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: trade-in to save up to £1,550
Vodafone's is offering its biggest ever trade-in deal for the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Fold 8 Ultra, with savings of up to £1,550 when trading in an eligible device. You can also get up to £1,130 off the Galaxy Z Flip 8 with a trade-in. Unlimited data contracts then start from £31.92 per month and from £40 upfront.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to £1,325 off with a trade-in
Trade-in offers at O2 include savings of up to £1,325 on the new Galaxy series devices when you pair them with an Unlimited Classic or Unlimited Plus plan.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: save up to £1,478 with a trade-in and get unlimited data
Three's trade-in offer for the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 and Fold 8 includes a discount of up to £1,478 when you hand in an eligible device. An extra £100 cashback is also available if you pair your device with a Samsung connected tablet, watch, or PC.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to £796 off with a trade-in, plus free Galaxy Watch 9
Over at Sky Mobile, you can save up to £796 on the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8, Fold 8, and Fold 8 Ultra when you trade in your existing handset. Contract prices with a handset start at £38 per month and £12 upfront for 256GB of data. As a bonus, every Galaxy Z Flip 8 order includes a free Galaxy Watch 9 (40mm) worth £349, while a Galaxy Z Fold 8 order comes with a free Galaxy Watch 9 (44mm) worth £379.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: from £39.99 a month, plus get £100 in Clubcard points
Rather than the big trade-in savings offered by others, Tesco Mobile is going strong on zero upfront costs and low monthly prices for its launch deals, with prices starting at £39.99 for 6GB of data. These offers are exclusively available for Clubcard members, and you get £100 Clubcard points with your order.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: get an extra £100 when you trade-in and another £100 with a discount code
If you have a device you want to trade-in so you can upgrade to one of Samsung's new foldables, then Currys might be a decent place to buy. The retailer is offering an extra £100 when you trade-in an eligible and working handset and pick up a new Fold 8 or Flip 8. Plus, you can use the code 'FOLD100' to get an extra £100 off at the checkout.View Deal

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8 / Fold 8 / Fold 8 Ultra: up to £1,000 off with a trade-in and get £50 when paired with a Watch 9 or Watch Ultra 2
Another option to buy the phone outright is at Amazon, where you can also get up to £1,000 off the new devices when you trade-in. If you want to bundle it with the new Galaxy Watch 9 or Galaxy Watch Ultra 2, you'll also get £50.View Deal

Recruitment has long relied on signals that serve as proxies for candidate skillsets: degrees, previous job titles, years of experience, and employer names. Those indicators don’t always show whether someone actually has the skills needed for the role they’re applying for. As AI reshapes work, businesses need clearer evidence of what people can do.

This imperative has led to a drastic shift in hiring norms In the UK, 99 per cent of employers are using skills-based hiring in some capacity, according to research. At the same time, 58 per cent expect more than a third of core job skills to change by 2030. Recruiters now need to hire for current requirements while also thinking about how roles are likely to evolve.

For hiring teams, five changes stand out.

1. Hiring is becoming more skills-first

AI is accelerating the move away from degree-first evaluation. When tools, business needs, and ways of working change quickly, employers can’t just rely on static indicators of academic achievement. They need to know whether candidates have practical, current and job-relevant skills.

Degrees still retain significant signaling value. A degree offers an essential foundation, particularly for critical thinking, communication and domain knowledge. But employers increasingly want additional proof that a candidate can apply those strengths in workplace settings.

For recruiters, job descriptions and selection criteria need to become more skill-oriented. Instead of asking for broad experience in a field, businesses should define the specific capabilities needed for the role: data analysis, AI literacy, cloud computing, cybersecurity awareness, project management, or the ability to interpret AI-generated outputs. A clearer skills profile can also help organizations identify strong candidates who have not followed traditional pathways.

2. AI credentials are changing how experience is weighted

Experience still carries weight, but AI is changing how that experience is judged. In fast-moving areas such as generative AI, data, and cloud, a candidate with recent, verified learning may be better prepared than someone with greater experience but outdated skills.

That’s why 42 per cent of UK employers say they would choose a less experienced candidate with a GenAI credential over a more experienced candidate without one. It shows how quickly the value of verified AI capability is rising.

This has practical implications for recruiters. Years of experience shouldn’t be treated as a signifier of readiness. In some roles, recent evidence of applied learning may be more useful. The challenge is to distinguish between candidates who’ve completed primarily theoretical training and those who can show they’re ready to apply what they’ve learned.

3. Verification is becoming more important

AI has made it easier for candidates to produce polished CVs, cover letters and portfolios. It has also made it harder for employers to know which evidence to trust.

This is likely to increase the value of credentials that verify skills to employers. In the UK, 95 per cent of employers say micro-credentials help identify candidates with real-world, applied expertise in areas such as AI, data, and cloud. That matters because recruiters need evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

The most useful credentials are those that assess applied skills, rather than only content completion. Employers will increasingly look for evidence that a candidate has built something, solved a practical problem or completed a project relevant to workplace needs.

Recruitment teams should reflect this in their processes. CV screening should be supported by practical assessments, structured interviews, and work-sample tasks. This blended approach will make decisions more accurate.

4. Recruiters need to assess human judgement alongside AI skills

AI literacy is becoming a common requirement, but it is insufficient to simply possess technical knowledge, particularly for those deploying AI in non-technical roles. Businesses need people who can work effectively with AI, including knowing when to question it.

As AI becomes embedded in everyday work, candidates will need to show that they can evaluate outputs, check sources, spot weak reasoning, and apply context. A candidate who accepts AI-generated content uncritically will introduce risk, irrespective of technical proficiency.

This adds novel new stages to the assessment process. Recruiters may need to ask candidates to critique an AI-generated response, improve a flawed analysis, or explain what further evidence they’d need before making a decision. These exercises can reveal whether someone has the judgement and domain expertise required to use AI tools responsibly.

For many roles, the differentiator won’t be whether a candidate can prompt a system: it’ll be whether they can turn AI output into sound business action.

5. Skills-first hiring must complement skills-first training

AI is compressing the shelf-life of skills. If, as expected, over a third of core skills will change by 2030 for many UK employers, hiring alone will not be enough to keep pace. In fact, 74 per cent of tech leaders acknowledge they cannot depend on new hires alone to fill AI skills gaps. That means skills-first hiring needs to become part of a wider talent development framework.

The same approach that helps recruiters identify the capabilities needed for a role can also help businesses map the skills they already have, spot gaps across the workforce, and create clearer routes for employees to build the capabilities the organization will need next.

Some capabilities will still need to be brought in from outside the organization, particularly in fast-moving areas such as AI, data and cloud. But many skills will also need to be developed internally as roles evolve. The strongest businesses will combine skills-based hiring with ongoing upskilling, giving employees clear routes to adapt as roles change.

The new recruitment advantage

AI is changing what employers need to know about candidates. Businesses that can identify real capability, verify applied skills, and recognize potential beyond traditional signals will be better placed to hire well. The value of this approach is already visible in workplace outcomes. 92 per cent of employers say entry-level hires with micro-credentials perform better in their first year on the job.

For candidates, the message is just as clear. In an AI-enabled labor market, employability will depend less on what someone once learned and more on what they can prove they can do now, and the evidence they’re still learning.

For employers, recruitment needs to become part of a broader skills strategy. AI may be changing the work, but the hiring challenge remains human: finding people with the skills, judgement and adaptability to help businesses compete and innovate.

We've featured the best website for hiring niche employees.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Apple unveiled the very first Mac Pro 20 years ago today, dubbing the computer “the ideal system for the most demanding user.” It was the last Mac to make the transition to Intel processors and put the final nail in the coffin of its PowerPC predecessor — quite a statement at the time.

In fact, the Mac Pro was so powerful that it doubled the performance of the Power Mac G5 that had launched less than a year earlier. Talk about earning that “Pro” moniker.

Many different iterations followed, but the one constant was the positioning. The Mac Pro was always the Mac you went for if money was no object but power was an imperative. It was, seemingly, a computer for the ages.

Or not, as it turned out. In March 2026, Apple officially discontinued the Mac Pro and said it had no plans for any future models. It was an ignominious end to the most powerful Mac Apple has ever made.

The very nature of the Mac Pro had always made it vulnerable. But that vulnerability proved to be fatal when combined with market conditions that even a giant like Apple is struggling to deal with today. When we look back at why the Mac Pro (just) failed to make it to 20 years old, there’s one very obvious culprit.

A dangerously niche product

(Image credit: Joseph Greve / Unsplash)

Right from the off, the Mac Pro was designed to be used by people in challenging professions who valued performance above all else. It was made to complement the eye-watering powers of the best Intel chips of the day, which offered far more in the way of output than the PowerPC processors Apple had previously been using.

That meant that the Mac Pro was always a niche product that flaunted its raw power. That was the point of the machine, and although the general public liked to poke fun at its sky-high prices (remember the $400 wheels on the 2019 model?), its intended audience didn’t much care. When your work consists of high-grade film productions, artificial intelligence (AI) data crunching or similarly demanding pursuits, high prices are just the cost of doing business.

But that niche nature meant the Mac Pro was never going to sell on the scale of the MacBook Air or the MacBook Pro. Apple was always taking a calculated risk, determining that it was worth going after a small but loyal audience who craved the Mac Pro’s power and reliability — and would continue to do so over the years.

The problem, though, was that Apple often seemed to take these users for granted. The cylindrical model introduced in 2013 — nicknamed the “trash can” Mac Pro for its tubular shape — went years without an update because, Apple later admitted, the company had “designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner”.

Amazingly, the 2013 model wasn’t updated until six years later — a veritable lifetime in computing terms — when the final design iteration of the Mac Pro finally touched down.

The introduction of the Mac Studio also caused a massive problem for the Mac Pro. Its performance was just as good as the Mac Pro, if not better, yet it came in a smaller package that cost far less. The choice for many people was clear.

With the transition to Apple silicon, add-in extras like the Apple Afterburner Card were no longer feasible, meaning the Mac Pro’s only real advantage was its inclusion of a few expansion options like PCIe. But when you’re paying a minimum of $6,999, those returns make less and less sense when compared with a Mac Studio.

Apple had long walked the fine line between infrequent updates and outright abandonment, but still it kept chugging away at the Mac Pro, even after the Mac Studio’s arrival. Instead, it was an external force that finally killed off the Mac Pro — and forced a complete rethink from Apple.

Buried in the dark

(Image credit: Apple)

On March 26, 2026, news emerged that Apple had discontinued the Mac Pro. The company explained to 9to5Mac that it also had “no plans to offer future Mac Pro hardware,” seemingly sounding the computer’s death knell for good.

The timing might have seemed strange, and it certainly seemed to come out of the blue. But with the benefit of hindsight, we can gain a pretty good idea of what happened and why Apple made the move when it did.

That’s because just three months later, Apple announced bombshell price rises that affected nearly every device it sold.

The Mac range was badly hit, with high-end devices like the Mac Studio coming in for particularly stinging increases. That device saw the single highest price jump by far, rocketing up by a painful $1,300 for the M3 Ultra model. The MacBook Pro, meanwhile, rose $300, the second-highest dollar increase of any Apple product.

These price adjustments weren’t made on a whim. No, they were prompted by the widespread component crisis that’s currently ravaging the entire computing industry.

Parts are getting more expensive by the day thanks to the overwhelming demand from AI data centers. Things are so bad that Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out, calling the situation “unsustainable” and describing his company’s price increases as “unavoidable”.

(Image credit: Far Chinberdiev / Unsplash)

When you see how badly pro users were affected by these changes, Apple’s decision to ditch the Mac Pro starts to make a lot more sense. If the Mac Studio now costs $1,300 more than it did previously — a figure that ballooned by almost 33% — what kind of wince-inducing costs would Mac Pro users be faced with had Apple continued to sell the device?

Going with that same 33% jump, we could have been looking at a Mac Pro that started at around $9,299. That’s a roughly 33% step up over the Mac Pro’s old entry price of $6,999. And we’re not even talking about any upgrades here — no beefed-up CPU or additional storage, not even any ultra-premium wheels. Just the base-level Mac Pro and nothing more.

When you think about it like that, it’s obvious why the Mac Pro was killed off just shy of its 20th anniversary. If Apple waited for the computer’s birthday, it would have been forced to escalate its price to frankly outrageous heights alongside all the other affected products.

And in the cut-throat world of business, that would have been a no-go considering the prices we’re talking about here. The Mac Pro was already selling in vanishingly small numbers. Boost its price by 33% — or even 20% — and its sales would have fallen off a cliff. The only thing a move like that would have generated is a torrent of bad press for very little positive return.

So in the end, Apple didn’t afford the Mac Pro a sentimental 20th birthday celebration. Given the ongoing memory crisis and its wide-ranging effects on the entire computing industry, there was no room to stand on ceremony. The Mac Pro was buried in the dark — before its price could become even more contentious.

• Kit Connor has reportedly joined Marvel's new X-Men movie
• The Heartstopper star is said to be playing Scott Summers/ Cyclops
• He joins Sadie Sink and Samara Weaving as part of the hotly-anticipated MCU film

Marvel has reportedly found the star it wants to portray beloved X-Men member Scott Summers/ Cyclops in its cinematic universe.

Per Deadline, Heartstopper actor Kit Connor has been hired to play the mutant group's in-the-field leader. Typically, Marvel hasn't commented on the report, but Deadline is extremely reliable when it comes to casting updates. It stands to reason, then, that Connor is the latest star to land a role in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).

If true, Connor will be the third actor to sign on for the new X-Men movie. Sadie Sink, who was confirmed to be the MCU's version of Jean Grey in Spider-Man: Brand New Day, is all but locked in for a role in Marvel's mutant-starring flick. Meanwhile, Samara Weaving was reportedly cast as popular superhuman Emma Frost on July 31, with Deadline again being the first to break the news of her apparent involvement.

Little else is known about Marvel's X-Men film reboot. According to Variety, though, the comic giant has ambitions on releasing it as the first project of Marvel Phase 7. If true, the untitled flick will precede the Ryan Gosling-starring Ghost Rider and David Jonsson-led Black Panther III, both of which are primed to arrive in 2028.

An ever-evolving line-up

Sadie Sink should reprise her role as Jean Grey in Marvel's X-Men movie reboot (Image credit: Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures)

Marvel may have locked in Sink, Weaving, and Connor for its forthcoming X-Men film, but fans are desperate to learn who else will feature alongside them.

Speculation has been rife about which other stars could appear, and you can catch up on the biggest rumors by reading my guide on everything we know so far about Marvel's new X-Men movie. Nonetheless, myriad new rumors have circulated online since news of Connor's involvement broke — and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some truth to all of them.

For starters, comic book creator Rob Liefeld took to X/ Twitter to write he'd heard that Inde Navarrette had officially signed on for the project. Liefeld's comments come weeks after the breakout star of Obsession confirmed she'd met with X-Men movie director Jake Schreier and, more recently, threw her hat in the ring to play Mystique.

Just gonna get it out of the way say I was also wrong about Pelphrey as Xavier. I heard a different name that’s not Skarsgard and that name is going around already so I’m sure it’ll leak soon but I’ll let it come out on its own. https://t.co/6bmdqgcD4yAugust 7, 2026

Elsewhere, trustworthy industry insider Apocalyptic Horseman has walked back on Tom Pelphrey (Task, Iron Fist) playing Charles Xavier/ Professor X, while another leaker in Caleb Williams has claimed that fan-favorite mutant Gambit won't be part of proceedings.

Meanwhile, on the latest edition of The Hot Mic podcast, the less-reliable Jeff Sneider has suggested Charles Melton (Beef season 2) is set to play Beast. Fellow podcast host John Rocha has also heard that Cailee Spaeny (Alien: Romulus, Beef season 2) has been tapped to portray Rogue, although Sneider believes she hasn't been.

Lastly, Sneider has indicated that Bill Skarsgard (It, Nosferatu), Ethan Hawke (Moon Knight, Blue Moon) and Jonathan Groff (Frozen, Wicked) are all in the running to play Professor X. Rocha, though, has heard Skarsgard isn't being looked at for that highly-coveted position.

As the X-Men casting rumor mill continues to capture everyone's attention, it might not be long until Marvel puts a pin in the speculation.

Indeed, with the 2026 edition of D23 Expo, aka the so-called ultimate fan event for Disney diehards that takes place every two years, being held between August 14 and 16, some fans believe Marvel will announce the film's full roster during said event. Let's hope that comes to pass because, I don't know about you, but I can't take many more months' of conjecture.

Want to see how the latest Spider-Man film tentatively sets up the next X-Men movie? Read my Spider-Man: Brand New Day ending explained piece. Once you're done, find out how to watch the X-Men movies in order.