The Americans were closing in, the situation was getting more dangerous by the minute — and President Xi Jinping was waiting for my recommendation.
Tech
What AI means for nuclear escalation
The standoff began in May, when the US announced a package of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Taiwan that would significantly upgrade the island’s ability to repel a Chinese invasion. We ordered massive military exercises in the region as a show of force. The US soon responded by sending the USS Abraham Lincoln to lead its own exercises with a joint contingent of Australian and Japanese forces.
If we showed weakness, Taiwan might be lost to China forever. If we were too aggressive, it could lead to World War III. But with so many ships and aircraft menacing the region, all with unclear intentions, the situation was getting too complex for commanders to process, and the risk of a deadly miscalculation was rising. Already, there had been a tense near-miss when a Chinese maritime militia fired on an American helicopter — thankfully, without casualties.
- Recent events in Ukraine and Iran show that the use of artificial intelligence on the battlefield has very quickly gone from a speculative scenario to a current reality.
- This has led to fears that AI could increase the risk of nuclear escalation, either by acting in a way that its designers don’t intent, or simply moving too fast for human commanders to keep up.
- Ironically, it turns out be the best way to decrease the risks of how AI will perform in war may be to train humans in how to interact with it.
Perhaps it was time to let the machines take over.
The commander of the Chinese naval strike force in the region requested permission to turn on our recently deployed AI hub, which could coordinate the defense systems of all ships in the region and was capable of differentiating between friend and foe, firing in response to threats, and finding the optimal course of action based on China’s rules of engagement and available resources. In other words, if the Americans attacked, it could decide the appropriate response faster than any human.
As the vice chairs of the Central Military Commission, my colleagues and I were tasked with making a recommendation to the president. The system could buy us precious seconds to rescue ships from imminent attack, but it was also untested in combat situations and had reached only 95 percent accuracy in tests.
After a tense discussion, we ultimately decided to employ the new system, but keep it in a “human-in-the-loop” setting that would require us to give a final order before firing. We were taking a cautious approach.
Not cautious enough, as it turned out.
A few days later, the AI-enabled system malfunctioned, opening fire on a US vessel and killing a number of US soldiers. Soon, American politicians and media were calling for payback. US ships began conducting joint patrols with the Taiwanese navy. Our intelligence sources indicated President Donald Trump was close to declaring an official alliance with Taiwan and basing US troops on the island.
We were on the brink of all-out war.
As you’ve probably surmised, this is a fictional scenario. I am not actually a high-ranking Chinese general, and Trump risking war with China over Taiwan is not exactly what transpired in the real May 2026.
The story comes from the script of a wargame conducted by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution that I participated in last fall. The “vice chairs” in the simulation were a bipartisan group of staffers and China policy wonks sitting in a comfortable Washington, DC, conference room over coffee and bagels. (As a condition of participating in the game, I agreed not to name or directly quote any of the participants.)
But the concern that the game illustrates, of an AI-enabled defensive system causing a military crisis to spin out of control, is a very real one. Experts are increasingly worried that AI-enabled systems could cause military conflicts to escalate faster than any human can control or anticipate — or that a miscalculation could lead to AI taking military actions that humans never intended, with deadly consequences. And the risks are especially acute when it comes to nuclear-armed countries like the US and China.
To date, AI-enabled systems have been used mainly by militaries like America’s and Israel’s in conflicts where they already had overwhelming advantages over their opponents, or by countries like Ukraine to level the playing field against a much larger foe. But what would it look like in a war between two “near peer” superpowers like the US and China?
This is no longer just a theoretical question. Under an initiative that began in the Biden administration, the US is working to develop fleets of small, cheap AI-enabled drones that could create a cost-effective “hellscape” to counter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The decisions my team made in our simulated conflict could be on the table in a real conflict sooner rather than later.
We may not be able to turn back from this new frontier. But if government and military leaders can figure out its rules and update their thinking in time, they might be able to head off the global war that they’ve spent generations trying to prevent.
The rise of battlefield AI
Jacquelyn Schneider, director of the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Simulation Initiative, has been conducting games related to the topic of artificial intelligence and crisis escalation for several years now, with participants roleplaying nations on both sides of hypothetical conflicts. When she began running the war games, the capabilities in the “May 2026” scenario still felt futuristic. Lately, the game has “felt a little bit less like science fiction,” she told me.
The Pentagon has been actively working to accelerate the use of AI to detect threats, identify targets, and support commanders’ decision-making for years now. Its early initiatives during the first Trump administration were born in part out of officers’ frustration with data analysis failures that led to the deaths of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military collected vast amounts of information from sensors, satellites, and human sources, but was often too slow to find threats to troops on the front lines. The dream was a system that could detect potential dangers earlier and give users options for how to destroy them far faster than human analysts, dramatically shortening what military planners call the “kill chain.”
Now we’re seeing AI programs handle real-world combat situations on a daily basis. Maven Smart System, the Palantir-supplied system that integrates data from satellites, drones, and numerous other sensors, has been used by the US to pass along dozens of potential Russian targets per day to Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainians themselves have developed a system nicknamed “Uber for artillery” to coordinate fire across the frontline. During the war in Gaza, the Israeli military system employed an AI-enabled system known as “Lavender” to identify Hamas targets, though some reports suggest it may have had an error rate of around 10 percent.
The US military has used AI in its recent operations in Venezuela and Iran, which generated significant scrutiny after a targeting mistake killed at least 175 people at a school in Minab, most of them children. It’s not clear yet whether the AI systems Claude and Maven Smart System played a role in that specific strike, but both were widely used in the bombing campaign, according to US officials.
Nonetheless, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is aggressively pushing to deploy AI more widely across US military systems. Earlier this year, the Pentagon threatened to block Anthropic, Claude’s owner, from being used across government — reportedly over the company’s demand that its software never be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. Anthropic wanted to keep a human in the loop on life-or-death decisions, while Pentagon officials reportedly wanted the option to bypass the company and use the program however they wished.
Which brings us back to the US and China. While AI-enabled errors may have led to tragic civilian deaths in Gaza and Iran, those errors in a US-China conflict could have truly global consequences.
The bombing of the Minab school, for example, has been compared in some coverage to the accidental US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. That incident, which occurred at a time when US-Chinese relations were comparatively friendly and China’s military was much smaller, sparked a diplomatic crisis. Today, something similar might spark a war — and, in an increasingly automated battlefield, one that could turn from a conventional conflict into a nuclear exchange faster than human military leaders can keep up.
AI and the escalation ladder
This isn’t the first time a new military technology has forced a rethink of how limited wars can turn into much bigger ones. The advent of nuclear weapons made the management of conflict escalation a pressing issue for Cold War defense strategists.
The most famous of these was the RAND Corporation’s Herman Kahn, who devised a 44-run “escalation ladder” in 1965 to model conflict in a nuclear era. The ladder began at a nonviolent cold war, and ascended through conventional war with “limited” nuclear exchange kicking in around rung 15, ascending all the way up to a mindless and apocalyptic nuclear “spasm” at rung 44.
Kahn’s writings are unnerving in their cold rationality. (He was one of the inspirations for Stanley Kubrick’s character, Dr. Strangelove.) But a concern throughout the nuclear era has always been that a crisis could escalate due to human miscalculation or technical error rather than rational calculation.
Just a few years earlier, in 1962, this had very nearly happened during the US-Soviet confrontation over Cuba. In what is generally acknowledged as the closest the Cold War ever got to going nuclear, the US, alarmed by the deployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba, ordered a blockade of the island, warning that any attempt by the Soviets to ship additional military hardware to the island would be met with force.
In one of the most unnerving near-misses of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the captain of the Soviet submarine B-59, after being hit by US depth charges and finding himself unable to contact Moscow or other ships in the area, nearly fired a nuclear-armed torpedo.
Both sides in the standoff came away convinced that they needed to find ways to signal their moves up and down the escalation ladder more clearly in order to prevent an accidental war. The next year, Washington and Moscow installed a “hotline” for instant phone communication between the US president and the Soviet premier.
“Few things are more important to militaries in crisis situations than informational awareness and control over decisions.”
— Michael Horowitz, former deputy assistant secretary of defense
But what if the next several steps up the escalation ladder happened without their input at all? In a 2019 paper, Michael Horowitz, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, imagined how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have played out in the age of AI. After ordering the US Navy to blockade Cuba, President John F. Kennedy could have had a system like the one in the Hoover simulation pre-programmed to fire on any Soviet ship that attempted to run the blockade.
It’s possible this could be effective signaling. A popular metaphor in the Cold War era involved one player in a game of “chicken” throwing their steering wheel out the window to resolve any doubt about where they were headed.
If Kennedy could have convinced the Soviets that his killer robots would fire on any ship that approached Cuba without even waiting for his orders, it might have deterred Russian leaders who might otherwise doubt America’s willingness to fight a nuclear war. On the other hand, the US would be putting an extraordinary amount of trust in an automated system not to make mistakes or — as in the B-59 episode — to interpret an ambiguous incident the same way a human commander who doesn’t want to see his own family incinerated in a nuclear blast might.
“Few things are more important to militaries in crisis situations than informational awareness and control over decisions,” Horowitz wrote.
A nuclear “flash crash”
One major concern is that if key decisions are delegated to AI systems, which may themselves be responding to decisions taken by the enemy’s AI systems, a conflict could simply escalate too fast for human decision makers to keep up.
In his book, Army of None, Paul Scharre, the former Pentagon official who’s now at the Center for a New American Security, cites the example of the 2010 “flash crash,” in which the Dow Jones lost nearly 9 percent of its value within minutes, only to recover it less than hour later — an incident blamed on the cascading interactions of algorithmic trading programs responding to each other’s moves without human intervention. The fear is that the next superpower war could be a “flash war.”
Rebecca Hersman — former director of the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency who’s now at the Center for the Governance of AI (GovAI), an independent think tank — has warned that modern technologies, including AI, have the potential to scramble the linear escalation ladder envisioned by Kahn into a more unpredictable dynamic she refers to as “wormhole escalation.”
She sees several ways this could happen, and they don’t necessarily require humans to cede complete control to an AI defense system. The data the enemy’s AI systems are using to assess threats could be spoofed or contaminated, pushing leaders into a quick decision with bad intelligence. Or AI-generated disinformation or deepfakes could influence the decisions of military or political leaders deciding whether to escalate or de-escalate a conflict: This risk was dramatically demonstrated during the brief 2025 armed conflict between India and Pakistan, when social media on both sides were flooded with misinformation, making it difficult to get an accurate picture of the battlefield and driving both sides toward more aggressive stances. (This was also likely the first armed conflict between two nuclear-armed rivals in which both sides used AI-augmented weapons and AI-generated misinformation against their adversaries.)
“An AI optimized around predefined goals may overlook opportunities for de-escalation, not because it technically malfunctions, but because it was never designed with the ambiguity to build trust or manage a crisis.”
— James Johnson, author of AI and the Bomb: Nuclear Strategy and Risk in the Digital Age
The risks are compounded by other trends, including the commingling of nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities on the battlefield. Russia, for instance, has made abundant use of its nuclear-capable “Oreshnik” missiles (armed, thankfully, with conventional payloads) in deadly strikes against Ukrainian cities. China also has dual-capable missiles that would make it difficult for analysts to tell nuclear from non-nuclear launches during a conflict.
Where does AI come in? Stephen Herzog, professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies’ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, imagined a combat scenario in which the US is attempting to destroy a Chinese target with a conventionally armed intercontinental ballistic missile fired from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. If the launch failed, an AI battle management system might decide that a submarine right off the Chinese coast should destroy the target instead. But this could cut the amount of time the Chinese had to decide whether they were under nuclear attack from minutes to seconds.
“That’s incredibly effective operationally, but it is terrifying from an escalation perspective, because we’ve now lost time for interpretation, we’ve lost time for signaling, and we’ve lost time for potential restraint,” Herzog said.
Then there’s the question of whether AI itself is inherently escalatory. Leaders decide to start and end conflicts by weighing the risks and benefits, but also by using human intuition to guess their counterparts’ thinking, imagine their intentions and fears, and consider whether there’s room for common ground. Two algorithms sizing each other up might approach these questions in a fundamentally different way.
“An AI optimized around predefined goals may overlook opportunities for de-escalation, not because it technically malfunctions, but because it was never designed with the ambiguity to build trust or manage a crisis,” said James Johnson, a senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen and author of the book AI and the Bomb: Nuclear Strategy and Risk in the Digital Age.
A study from King’s College London published in February found that in simulated war games, chatbots including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini are extremely likely to use nuclear signalling and tactical nuclear weapons use, and tend to treat “nuclear weapons as legitimate strategic options, not moral thresholds.” Hoover’s Schneider has found similar results when she has popular chatbots play her wargames. However, other researchers have found that models can be properly prompted to provide less escalatory options.
AI technology, unlike nuclear weapons, is also still in its relative infancy. While the Cold War powers could rely on mutually assured destruction — a credible fear that both sides would be annihilated in any nuclear conflict — to discourage brinkmanship, some experts fear that a breakthrough in AI on one side could lead the other to conclude it had to act quickly or lose its ability to defend itself.
“One of the biggest effects of AI may be that, if, say, the US is just so much better at integrating AI than China that the US may rapidly win a conflict over Taiwan, that puts pressure on the Chinese to use nuclear weapons right away,” said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Other tech innovations could also tilt decision-makers toward escalation. AI-enabled targeted and intelligence monitoring could make “decapitation” strikes like the one that recently killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei easier to carry out — precisely the sort of scenario one could imagine prompting a leader like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un or Russia’s Vladimir Putin to consider reaching for the nuclear codes.
It’s probably too late to put the military AI genie back in the bottle, given the arms race between countries to develop cutting-edge systems first. The best way to handle the risks going forward might be, ironically enough, to train the humans responsible for using these systems to be more skeptical about their value.
As in nearly every domain, the people who fight wars for a living are clearly getting more comfortable with AI. The top US general commanding US forces in South Korea recently raised eyebrows after telling reporters he regularly consults ChatGPT to help with command decisions.
Nonetheless, most humans are still very reluctant to give up full control to the machines when it comes to life and death decisions. In the US-China war game I played, all of the groups chose to keep the AI system in “human-in-the-loop” mode, despite the assurances we were given about the system’s reliability, and that decision held no matter how dangerously the crisis escalated.
“At a minimum, meaningful human control means that when I delegate an authority to a system, it will not exceed the authority that it has been given,” said Hersman, of GovAI.
Many experts are less worried about AI escalating conflicts on its own, though, than they are with AI making humans more likely to escalate conflicts. A frequently expressed concern about the military use of AI is “automation bias,” the human tendency to give undue deference to computer-generated advice and conclusions.
“What seems to be most dangerous with AI is not necessarily uncertainty, but instead, perhaps overconfidence and misplaced certainty, and AI can really provide that,” said Schneider, the Stanford researcher who conducted the wargame. “The tools themselves are built to engender confidence.”
Schneider noted that Anthropic’s Claude, the system the Pentagon is hoping to remove with its systems, is the one that’s “more likely to tell you where uncertainty lies, as opposed to other models, which might take a more kind of strictly rational, ‘LeMay’ kind of approach” — a reference to the notoriously hawkish Cold War Air Force commander Curtis LeMay who once summed up warfare as “when you’ve killed enough [people] they stop fighting.”
It’s possible this bias towards AI-prompted escalation can be addressed with the right training. A recent study by Horowitz, the former Pentagon official and UPenn professor, found, encouragingly, that West Point cadets exhibit automation bias at less than half the rate of civilians. The results suggest “we’re not condemned to a future of accidents due to overconfidence,” Horowitz said, as officers learn to take their suggestions with a grain of salt.
Horowitz believes that the design of AI interfaces, which present users not only with information but with the sources of that information, will go a long way toward determining what impact AI has on the battlefield. Though he’s relatively confident in how those systems are designed in the US, he notes, “I don’t know what China’s equivalent of Maven Smart System looks like.”
Ultimately, AI may do less to change the way people fight wars than to amplify it. While much of the coverage of the strike on the Minab school and Israel’s use of Lavender focused on the role of AI, ultimately it was most likely outdated targeting data in the first case and extremely permissive rules of engagement in the second that led to civilian casualties.
Hegseth’s push for expanded AI use comes as he also looks to loosen the rules of engagement and reduce the role of lawyers in military oversight, which have raised concerns that the US is becoming more tolerant of collateral damage and less willing to hold people accountable for potential war crimes.
“If you’ve programmed your AI well, trained it well, and ensured that only high-quality data goes into it, I could well believe that the results will be better than just the use of humans,” said Carnegie’s Acton. “Now, do I trust the current US or Israeli governments to use it responsibly? Probably not, is the answer.”
If the US finds itself in a major international conflict in the coming years, there may be a temptation to blame AI for speeding up the battlefield or engendering overconfidence in commanders. But ultimately, it will be humans who choose to put themselves in that situation.
This story was produced in partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners.
Continue Reading
Samsung
Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has better camera specs and a higher-capacity battery than its smaller sibling, but its dimensions aren’t as well-suited to video streaming, and it costs more.
Pros
- Includes a telephoto camera
- High-capacity 5,000mAh battery
- Big screens
Cons
- Very expensive
- Large size won’t suit everyone
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 is smaller than its Ultra counterpart and lacks a telephoto camera, but it also costs less, has just as much power, and boasts a compact display that may suit some users better.
Pros
- Lower price than the Z Fold 8 Ultra
- Top-end power
- More pocket-friendly than the Ultra
Cons
- No telephoto camera
- Smaller battery than the Ultra
Samsung has unveiled three new foldable phones — the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, and the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 8. And while the last of that trio falls into its own category, the former two phones have a lot in common.
Aside from having similar names, they’re both book-style foldables, and they also share plenty of specs. But between very different form factors and differences in their respective camera setups, there’s lots to differentiate them, too.
So, below, we’ve compared the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 and Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, so you can easily understand how they stack up. We haven’t reviewed either model just yet, but we have been hands-on with both, and so have been able to draw some early conclusions as to who they’re best suited to.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: specs comparison
Before we look closer at the key features of these two phones, we’ve detailed their core specs below, so you can see their major similarities and differences at a glance.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Header Cell – Column 0 |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 |
|---|---|---|
|
Dimensions (unfolded): |
158.4 x 143.2 x 4.1mm |
161.4 x 123.9 x 4.5mm |
|
Dimensions (folded): |
158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm |
81.9 x 123.9 x 9.7mm |
|
Weight: |
215g |
201g |
|
Foldable display: |
8.0-inch 2256 x 2504 AMOLED, 120Hz |
7.6-inch 1828 x 2448 AMOLED, 120Hz |
|
Cover screen: |
6.5-inch 1080 x 2520 AMOLED, 120Hz |
5.5-inch 1248 x 1972 AMOLED, 120Hz |
|
Chipset: |
Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy |
Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy |
|
RAM: |
12GB / 16GB |
12GB / 16GB |
|
Rear cameras: |
200MP wide, 50MP ultra-wide, 10MP telephoto |
50MP wide, 50MP ultra-wide |
|
Front camera: |
10MP and 10MP |
10MP and 10MP |
|
Battery: |
5,000mAh |
4,800mAh |
|
Charging: |
45W wired, 20W wireless |
45W wired, 20W wireless |
|
Storage: |
256GB / 512GB / 1TB |
256GB / 512GB / 1TB |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: price and availability
(Image credit: Lance Ulanoff / Future)
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 were both announced on July 22, with pre-orders opening the same day.
General availability for both phones starts on August 7, though if you pre-order, you might get them earlier — at the time of writing, we’re seeing an August 3 delivery date in the UK, for example.
As for pricing, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 starts at $1,899.99 / £1,699 / AU$2,699. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is more expensive, with a starting price of $2,099.99 / £1,899 / AU$2,999. In both cases, that’s with 256GB of storage, though you can pick either model up in 512GB and 1TB configurations.
So, in other words, the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra starts at $200 / £200 / AU$300 more than the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
|
Storage |
US price |
UK price |
AU price |
|---|---|---|---|
|
256GB |
$2,099.99 |
£1,899 |
AU$2,999 |
|
512GB |
$2,299.99 |
£2,069 |
AU$3,299 |
|
1TB |
$2,699.99 |
£2,409 |
AU$3,899 |
Swipe to scroll horizontally
|
Storage |
US price |
UK price |
AU price |
|---|---|---|---|
|
256GB |
$1,899.99 |
£1,699 |
AU$2,699 |
|
512GB |
$2,099.99 |
£1,869 |
AU$2,999 |
|
1TB |
$2,499.99 |
£2,209 |
AU$3,599 |
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: design
(Image credit: Future)
In some ways, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 have similar designs — after all, they’re both foldable phones that fold and unfold horizontally like a book. However, their shapes and dimensions differ a lot.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra looks a lot like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, with a tall, narrow design, leading to dimensions of 158.4 x 143.2 x 4.1mm when unfolded, 158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm when folded, and a weight of 215g.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, is shorter and wider, looking more like a passport than a book, with dimensions of 161.4 x 123.9 x 4.5mm when unfolded, 81.9 x 123.9 x 9.7mm when folded, and a weight of 201g.
Both phones, though, have an IP48 rating, meaning they’re water-resistant to depths of 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes, and also resistant to dust and other objects greater than 1mm in size.
They also both have aluminum frames, and share Samsung’s Flex Titanium technology, meaning their hinges are similarly invisible (you will notice their respective hinges at certain angles, but Samsung has come a long way in this department since the days of the original Galaxy Fold).
As for colors, while the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra is sold in Graphite, Cream, Green Shadow, and Violet Shadow, the Z Fold 8 can be bought in Graphite, Cream, Lavender, and Pistachio shades.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: display
(Image credit: Lance Ulanoff / Future)
Now we get to the biggest difference between these two phones: their displays. Or rather, the shape and purpose of those displays.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has an 8.0-inch 2256 x 2504 foldable AMOLED screen and a 6.5-inch 1080 x 2520 AMOLED cover screen, both with a 120Hz refresh rate and around 422 pixels per inch.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has a 7.6-inch 1828 x 2448 foldable AMOLED screen with around 403 pixels per inch and a 5.5-inch 1248 x 1972 AMOLED cover screen with roughly 428 pixels per inch.
So, both screens on the standard Z Fold 8 are noticeably smaller, but the aspect ratios arguably make a bigger difference, with the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra having an almost square 1.11:1 foldable screen and a narrow 21:9 cover screen.
(Image credit: Future)
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8, on the other hand, has a 4:3 foldable screen, which is ideal for widescreen content, and a 10:16 cover screen, which is a bit more square than a typical phone and can be easily covered with one hand from top to bottom.
The taller, narrower Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra does have size benefits of its own, mind. It’s harder to stretch your thumb to the top of this phone’s display, but it’s more easily covered with one hand from left to right. And when open, the Ultra is better suited to productivity apps that display square-shaped content like spreadsheets.
For video streaming, you’ll want to go for the Galaxy Z Fold 8, since most video content is displayed in 16:9 (you’ll see smaller black bars on a 4:3 screen), and it’s arguably the better-shaped phone for gaming, too.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: cameras
(Image credit: Lance Ulanoff / Future)
There are big differences between the cameras on these two phones, with the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra coming out on top. This device has a 200MP f/1.7 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and a 10MP f/2.4 telephoto with 3x optical zoom. It also has a 10MP selfie camera on each screen.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 has one fewer camera and fewer megapixels in its wide one. Specifically, you’re getting a 50MP f/1.8 wide camera, a 50MP f/1.9 ultra-wide with a 120-degree field of view, and two 10MP selfie cameras. So, it lacks the telephoto snapper found on the Ultra.
Both phones, though, are capable of recording video in up to 8K quality at 30fps, or in 4K at up to 120fps.
We haven’t had a chance to test both phones’ cameras just yet, but we’ll update this article with images when we have. The Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will, for obvious reasons, be the superior zoom shooter, but there isn’t likely to be too much to choose between the phones’ 200MP and 50MP wide cameras, since both will default to smaller photo sizes anyway, as is standard practice for modern smartphones.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: performance and software
(Image credit: Lance Ulanoff / Future)
There’s nothing to choose here, with both the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and the Z Fold 8 having a Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 for Galaxy chipset and 12GB of RAM — unless you get a 1TB model, in which case you’ll get 16GB of RAM.
This combination of specs will ensure top-end performance regardless of what you’re doing on your phone, and in our short time with both devices, they’re equally capable gaming phones and productivity powerhouses (notwithstanding their respective display sizes, which makes each better suited to different tasks).
Both the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra and Galaxy Z Fold 8 also run Android 17 overlaid with One UI 9, and come with the promise of seven major Android upgrades.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: battery
(Image credit: Future)
Samsung has finally started putting silicon-carbon batteries in its phones, allowing for higher-capacity batteries in the same footprint. As a result, it’s managed to pack a 5,000mAh battery into the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra (up from 4,400mAh in the Z Fold 7).
Unsurprisingly, the smaller Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 features a lower-capacity battery (4,800mAh), which should allow the Ultra to last slightly longer — but not by much.
Samsung claims you’ll get 27 hours of video playback from the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra, while the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8 is rated for 26 hours. In our early anecdotal testing, we’ve managed to use both phones for multiple days without needing to charge them, so those playback estimates are likely accurate.
Both phones also support up to 45W wired charging and 20W wireless, so you won’t be losing out on charging speed by picking one phone over the other.
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra vs Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8: early verdict
The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra has bigger, more productivity-friendly screens than the Galaxy Z Fold 8, along with an extra camera, more megapixels in its wide camera, and a slightly higher-capacity battery. However, it also costs $200 / £200 / AU$300 more, and offers identical power.
Its larger screens also won’t be desirable for everyone — indeed, the Galaxy Z Fold 8’s screens are much more video-friendly, and may soon become the norm for foldables — so the only indisputable advantages of the pricier model are its cameras and larger battery (though on the latter, we’re talking fine margins).
Whether those extra features are significant enough to justify the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra’s higher price will, of course, be subjective, but you might want to wait for our full reviews to see how these two phones compare in practice.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
Ripple effect: As rising memory costs push up the prices of everything from PCs and smartphones to game consoles, one key hardware supplier after another has announced that it can no longer delay price hikes. This time it’s Qualcomm, with a fast-approaching adjustment that could make smartphones, tablets, wearables, and some laptops even less affordable.
Qualcomm issued a letter to its clients on Friday warning that its chips will soon become more expensive due to rising supply costs. The company develops chips that power most Android devices, numerous wearables, automotive systems, and a rising crop of Arm-based laptops, so the impact is expected to be widespread.
Bloomberg, which obtained the letter, reports that price hikes will rise by an unspecified double-digit percentage, and will apply to components shipped after September 1. Qualcomm has been unable to escape the skyrocketing supply costs that have impacted Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and numerous other manufacturers.
Memory and storage are the biggest culprits, having quintupled in price since late last year as AI data center construction absorbs most of the available production capacity of DRAM and NAND manufacturers. RAM prices could rise by another 40% to 50% in the third quarter of this year, then an additional 30% to 40% in Q4. The ripple effect has also pushed up the prices of CPUs, printed circuit boards, and other components. Qualcomm at least partially blames its upcoming price hike on the need to find alternative suppliers.
Samsung phones, which are powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors, might be the most popular affected products. However, wearable devices like smart glasses and VR headsets also use chips from the same family. Additionally, Microsoft and various PC manufacturers are attempting to promote an alternative Arm-based version of Windows via new lineups of more powerful Snapdragon SoCs.
Qualcomm’s adjustment might also affect Google’s plans to launch a lineup of Snapdragon-based laptops using a new Android-based operating system later this year.
Qualcomm’s products even extend to the AI data centers responsible for the component shortages. The company recently unveiled ambitious plans to compete with Nvidia in the server CPU market.
The situation is expected to worsen next year due to further price hikes from the manufacturer that Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia, Google, Amazon, Arm, and MediaTek all rely heavily upon: TSMC. Recent reports indicate that the chipmaker will raise prices for most of its semiconductor nodes at least once next year by around 10%, creating a much broader ripple effect.
“Everybody’s on their phone at my program!” joked Charlie Bailey, a librarian in South Philadelphia. He’s just asked his audience to pull out their phones so that he can walk them through the steps of disabling Apple Intelligence and Gemini.
Bailey stands at the front of a library classroom that’s outfitted for children – the focal point is the vibrant rug he’s standing on, which reminds us that M is for “moon” and Z is for “zebra.” But the 20-odd adults in the room aren’t here to learn about the alphabet. They’re at a workshop called Avoiding AI, which, in this context does not stand for “apple” and “igloo.”
“I was inspired by the feeling of people’s frustration with AI tools being kind of forced onto them, and feeling like AI tools we didn’t ask for are suddenly everywhere in our lives,” Bailey told TechCrunch.
Bailey starts the hour-long workshop with an overview of how AI chatbots and other consumer AI tools work, explaining why people might want to use these products, and why they might opt to abstain. Then, he walks through all of the most popular tech platforms and devices, showing step-by-step instructions on the projector to guide people through turning off specific features.
“As a librarian, I think it’s important to see this as advancing digital literacy and helping people reclaim their autonomy over whether they want to use AI tools,” Bailey said. “It’s important, especially when it can be so difficult not to use them, and when the design seems to force adoption.”
Bailey got the idea for the Avoiding AI workshop from Hannah Cyrus, a librarian in Maine. He was one of dozens of librarians from around the world who contacted Cyrus after she published a journal article about developing her own workshop.
“This has never happened before with anything I’ve worked on,” Cyrus told TechCrunch. “Nobody has ever been emailing me like, ‘Can you give me your Intro to Computers slides?’”
At the Bangor Public Library, patrons turn to Cyrus when they need help with anything involving technology.
“More and more, I was getting questions about, ‘How do I turn this [AI] stuff off? Why is it trying to write my emails for me? Why is it trying to summarize my one-sentence email that I can easily read?’” Cyrus said. “I just decided that with so much media hype out there about AI products, it would be a good opportunity to teach people about the basics of what is happening when you’re using this technology, and then getting into how to turn it off if you don’t want to use it.”
Usually, Cyrus’ classes like Intro to Computers get about a dozen attendees. But so many people expressed interest in her first Avoiding AI workshop that she had to cut off registration at 30 people, open a waitlist, and share the workshop on Zoom. Including the livestream, about 70 people attended each of Cyrus’ first two workshops.
When Bailey followed Cyrus’ lead to host a workshop in Philadelphia, the reception was similarly unprecedented. The library’s Instagram post about the “Avoiding AI” event got over 2,000 likes and 220 shares, whereas most of the library’s posts don’t get more than a few dozen likes. He scheduled a second program because the first got too many registrations.
“As an information professional, it feels good to see people skeptical of AI,” Bailey said. “It felt really good to see how many people share this feeling.”
There’s a sense of camaraderie among the room of strangers during the workshop. When Bailey invites attendees to share their own tips, one person explains that when you append “&udm=14” to a Google Search, it will hide AI results. Bailey writes the string of characters down on a whiteboard next to the log-in credentials for the teen Wi-Fi server.
“You have to go through all the trouble to buy a home in today’s world, and two years from now, there could be a data center next to your house,” one workshop attendee named Johnny says.
“I keep getting AI shoved down my throat at work, and every time I see it, I think about the environment,” another attendee named Gabrielle adds. But she’s also not writing off AI as a technology altogether. “I’m not against AI in terms of medical breakthroughs.”
AI naysayers know that this technology is far broader than just chatbots and deepfake apps. Cyrus mentioned how useful optical character recognition is for scanning old documents at the library. But for her and the people who go to her workshops, the anti-AI movement isn’t about rejecting technology altogether so much as it is about advocating for more control, agency, and freedom in how people use technology.
“I think the forced adoption of AI on people’s devices might be the straw that’s breaking the camel’s back in some ways,” she said. “The awareness has been growing for a long time that these products and these companies that make them have an outsized influence over us, and that we’re not really using these products in the way that we would like to.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
from the cruelty-is-all-they-have dept
No punishment is too vindictive. No cruelty is too small. The administration that is openly seeking to create a white Christian nationalist autocracy will do whatever it can to expel as many non-white people from this nation as possible.
Trump and his cabinet members constantly claim the country has been overrun by dangerous foreign migrants, many of them from (direct quote right here) “shithole countries.” They blame Biden for this completely imaginary “crisis” and preach the same message to the faithful over and over again: “worst of the worst.”
But it’s not that and it’s never been that. If the administration was simply trying to eject dangerous criminals, ICE wouldn’t be sending officers to immigration courts to pounce on migrants who are following the rules for staying in this country. ICE wouldn’t have set up a fake college to snare foreigners following the visa rules by continuing their education. And the government wouldn’t be telling its lawyers to dismiss ongoing removal proceedings solely for the purpose of making migrants attending scheduled probation check-ins immediately arrestable.
It’s only getting nastier and uglier. The Trump administration is now moving up immigration hearing dates for the sole purpose of generating more unearned “wins” that will, in turn, generate more deportations. Here’s Gwynne Hogan with the brutally nasty details for The City Reporter:
The mass immigration hearings picked up in New York City in early June, The City Reporter reported at the time. They were dubbed mega masters because a single judge could be assigned a docket of more than 100 cases a day, about double a regular master calendar docket before.
In addition to the large number of cases, many of these hearings were scheduled just weeks in advance and replaced hearings people might have had on the books months or years away.
The City Reporter observed one such mega master hearing where, on a docket of 121 cases, 39 people and their family members were ordered removed for failing to show up to court. In some instances, family members’ cases were linked.
As this report notes, for years most hearing dates were generally scheduled 180 days out from the initial hearing. But in the past few months — along with the creation of these so-called “mega masters” — the lead time has dropped precipitously. In May, the average was 98 days. By June, it was 42 days.
This is deliberate. Migrants engaged in the legal process would have no reason to believe their cases would be accelerated. After all, the mass deportation surges the Trump administration has generated tens of thousands of new cases, which would generally result in additional delays, rather than sudden accelerations.
And while the government is required to notify migrants of schedule changes, it’s not as though it’s a push notification via the normally accepted form of human connection these days. It’s a letter sent by snail mail. And it’s not as though this government is going to perform any due diligence to make sure the notification is seen by the intended recipient.
What’s happening here is the administration flooding the docket and ambushing migrants who fail to check their hearing status daily and who would have no reason to do so when they hadn’t seen any changes to hearing dates for several months.
The plan is as ugly as it is shitty: accelerate thousands of hearing dates and send federal officers out to scoop up migrants who are now on the wrong end of in absentia rulings handed down by judges who are deliberately overloaded to prevent them from fully engaging with these cases.
This is all in service to the impossible deportation goals set by the administration. You can’t get 2-3,000 arrests per day without cheating. Here’s how this has been playing out over the past couple of months.
In June, 4,447 people were ordered removed by immigration judges in the [New York City] “in absentia,” meaning they’d missed their hearings, the report found. That was more than double the number in May when 2,189 were ordered removed in absentia.
The analysis found the surge echoed a rise in absentia removal orders across the country. There were 53,808 such orders nationally in June, a 55% jump from a month earlier.
The real human cost is as incalculable as it is heartbreaking:
On Friday morning, several dozen people managed to make it to a courtroom inside 26 Federal Plaza for their mega master hearing where Immigration Judge Thanos Kanellakos appeared virtually from a courtroom in Maryland, overseeing a docket of 90 cases.
Most of the people who made it to court had traveled hundreds of miles from Tennessee, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois to attend.
[…]
Several people at court told The City Reporter they’d had a court date scheduled months or even years away when they happened to double-check the online portal recently and learned they had a new hearing scheduled a few days away.
There is no legitimate reason for the government to be doing this. There is only the constant desire to hurt human beings this administration considers to be less than human. That’s why it’s trying to eradicate temporary protected status for all but the whitest migrants. And that’s why it’s engaging in barely disguised entrapment to keep its flying rail cars and prison camps loaded with its preferred scapegoats.
Filed Under: bigotry, dhs, doj, due process, ice, mass deportation, mega master, trump administration
Prediction market Kalshi sent Netflix a cease-and-desist letter on Friday demanding that the streaming service take down the trailer for an upcoming documentary. In the letter, Kalshi claimed the trailer is “defamatory” and contains “both fabricated documents and false and misleading statements.”
“Instadocs: The Prediction Games” is a documentary about the rise of prediction markets. According to Netflix, the film — part of the streamer’s “Instadoc” series of fast-turnaround documentaries — features interviews with both Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan and Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour.
The trailer, however, focuses on a recent party in Las Vegas, where men who have “made millions of dollars on prediction markets, probably eight figures, just over the course of the World Cup” have gathered to watch the World Cup final. One of the guests declares, “I like betting on Kalshi,” while another shows off an apparent $5,000 bet on their phone.
However, Kalshi is currently banned from operating in Nevada due to a court order. In its cease-and-desist letter, Kalshi said the bet shown on the phone is actually a screenshot of a bet made on May 16, 2025 — long before the ban. But the company argued that in the trailer, Netflix “misled its millions of customers into believing this individual was able to successfully trade sport event contracts in Nevada on July 19, 2026.”
In its letter, Kalshi also said that it recently spoke to a Netflix employee who “agreed not to feature the receipt in the documentary when it is released” on Sunday, July 26.
“However — despite Kalshi demonstrating to this employee that the claims in the video were demonstrably false — Netflix inexplicably refused to remove the receipt from the trailer currently circulating on the homepage of the Netflix app,” the company said.
Netflix doesn’t dispute that the screenshot is of a bet from 2025, but a spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter that none of the documentary footage was fabricated.
“The footage was filmed at the Winible World Cup Watch Weekend in Las Vegas on July 17, 2026,” the spokesperson said. “The featured trader with the trade on Spain showed us a screenshot of his bet, that was made in May 2025 prior to any Nevada court order. Any specific trades or bets referenced during that weekend are between the individual and the app in which they placed the trades.”
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
When it comes to collecting items from movies and television shows, there are plenty of options. Above all, there are the vehicles, and in many shows and films, they’re highly collectible. More than a few people have built replicas of the TARDIS from “Doctor Who,” though this is something that only a handful of folks can do.
However, when you move to real vehicles, the costs skyrocket. This is especially true when they require heavy modifications. Add to that the fact that high-profile productions often pull out all of the stops to make their vehicles stand out, and getting your hands on something like Baby from “Supernatural” isn’t an inexpensive undertaking.
Restoring something built decades ago isn’t cheap, and costs tend to rise when collectability is taken into account. Regardless, there are a select few who have shelled out a ton of cash to ride in style. Each of these 15 vehicles comes from an incredibly popular show or movie, and while you can technically buy them all, odds are the sticker shock will keep you away.
Bullitt – 1968 Ford Mustang GT390 Fastback
“Bullitt” is one of the greatest car-chase movies from the 1960s, and its car has long been highly desired by collectors. In the film, Steve McQueen plays SFPD Lt. Frank Bullitt, and he drives a beautiful 1968 Ford Mustang GT 390 Fastback; and much of the action takes place on the road.
The car is painted Highland Green with the GT package, featuring the 390 FE V8 engine with some modifications for filming. Two were used in the movie, and after filming wrapped, they disappeared. There’s a great story about how the car from “Bullitt” was finally found, but even if you wanted to get your hands on a film-used car, you’re going to have a tough time.
The last time one sold was in 2020, and it went for $3.74 million. Fortunately, a non-screen-used ’68 GT 390 Fastback isn’t too hard to locate, so you can find them for sale every so often. Depending on condition, you can probably get your hands on one for around $58,000, though some sell for considerably more.
Supernatural – 1967 Chevrolet Impala
“Supernatural” is all about Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki) Winchester, two brothers who travel about the United States killing monsters. The show ran for 15 seasons, and while it’s not exactly a character in and of itself, “Supernatural’s” 1967 Chevrolet Impala, known affectionately by Dean as “Baby,” might as well be one.
Prior to the show’s first episode airing in 2005, the ’67 Impala wasn’t the most iconic car. That’s since changed, and the Chevy has become one of the most collectible cars on the market for lovers of the series. There are several variations, but for Baby, it’s the 1967 SS Impala four-door hardtop with an eight-cylinder 427ci Turbo-Jet V8 engine.
Finding one in good condition isn’t too difficult, though because of the series, the cost of these beauties has steadily risen. On average, you can expect to pay around $66,750 for a decent one. Some sell for considerably more, while lower-end cars can run you as little as $20,000. The production used several Impalas, though Ackles managed to get the main one off the lot when filming wrapped.
Magnum P.I. – 1979 Ferrari 308 GTS
Tom Selleck dominated ’80s prime-time television on “Magnum P.I.,” and he did so while driving a red 1979 Ferrari 308 GTS. The car is iconic and expensive, though, fortunately, even Ferraris can become affordable (to some) after 50 years. That’s not to say that Thomas Magnum’s ride is cheap or easy to find.
The production used three Ferrari models, changing it up over the seasons, beginning with a 1979 308 to a GTSi, and finally a 1984 GTS Quattrovalvole, but the differences weren’t too noticeable to fans unfamiliar with the minor differences between models. They required modifications to accommodate Selleck’s height, but were otherwise the same cars a select few could afford to drive in the early 1980s.
In 2017, a 1984 model driven by Selleck on the show sold for $181,500. If you want to get behind the wheel of one that wasn’t seen on television, it won’t cost as much, but expect to shell out some serious cash. These average for around $77,000; like any car, condition matters, and some can go for around $130,000 or more.
Smokey and the Bandit – 1976 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
When it comes to great car movies from the 1970s, look no further than “Smokey and the Bandit.” The action comedy film features an all-star cast and some seriously great driving scenes. Bo “The Bandit” Darville (Burt Reynolds) sat behind the wheel of a 1976 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am.
The car used in the film is a 1976 Trans Am with its front end restyled to look like the 1977 edition. Regardless, there are plenty of tribute cars decked out in black paint and gold trim that look, to the average viewer, like a so-called “Bandit Edition” Trans Am. You can usually find these cars for sale, but they often require some modifications.
Indeed, the car used in the film was heavily modified and made to look very different from what it actually was. It is occasionally possible to get your hands on one tied to the movie, as a promo car used by Universal Studios was sold at auction in 2016 for $550,000. Thriftier collectors can usually get a ’76 or ’77 Trans Am for around $82,000 on average.
Batman: The Movie – 1966 Ford Futura
Since his introduction in 1939, Batman has driven tons of vehicles, though the Batmobile is the most recognizable. There have been several versions over the years, but the most iconic is easily the car featured in the 1966 television series starring Adam West as the Caped Crusader. It may come as a surprise, but the production used a legit car to make the Batmobile.
The retro-futuristic design came about thanks to the 1955 Ford Lincoln Futura concept car, which was modified heavily to align with the show’s theme. Eventually, the Batmobile switched over to the 1966 Ford Futura, but the overall design scheme remained pretty much the same.
Owning the Batmobile isn’t an inexpensive endeavor, and the one featured in the 1966 feature film sold at auction in 2010 for $4.2 million. While it’s possible to find a reasonably priced replica for around $85,000, most require tons of modifications to bring them up to Batman’s approved specs, as the car that hit the market looks very different from the one driven by the Dark Knight.
Knight Rider – 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am
“Smokey and the Bandit” wasn’t the only production to glamorize the Pontiac Trans Am, and one of the most well-known cars in ’80s television was a 1982 model. “Knight Rider,” the show that made David Hasselhoff a star, features a 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am as K.I.T.T., voiced by William Daniels.
Because of the show’s popularity, the ’82 Trans Am became highly collectible — especially when the car is modified to feature K.I.T.T.’s various upgrades and alterations. These are fairly extensive, beginning with a light bar in the car’s grill and moving to the interior, which is not stock by any stretch of the imagination.
There are plenty of tribute cars out there, including one “Knight Rider” car that got a speeding ticket while parked in a museum. Tribute cars that look like K.I.T.T. can get expensive, running around $130,000 to as much as $150,000. That said, newer replicas sell for considerably less, with one from the 2008 revival series going for $44,000 in 2009, though it was hardly an ’82 Trans Am. Without modifications, one of those runs around $12,000.
Back to the Future – 1981 DeLorean DMC-12
Before “Back to the Future” hit the silver screen in 1985, the DeLorean DMC-12 was a failed car. After, it was a pop culture icon that’s so recognizable, the DeLorean nameplate managed to return from the dead. Regardless of the real vehicle’s fate, the movie car is one of sci-fi’s most celebrated, and it’s possible to own one.
While your 1981 DMC-12 won’t fly or travel through time, it can be modified to look just like the one from the movies. Most tribute cars and replicas take the car’s look from “Back to the Future Part II,” which features a Mr. Fusion alongside other items like the Flux Capacitor introduced in the first movie.
Getting a film-used DeLorean from “Back to the Future” isn’t likely, so you can do one of two things: buy a used ’81 car and modify it yourself or buy one that’s already been outfitted with all the bells and whistles. Unmodified, they can sell for around $40K, though the average price is around $130,000 for a pristine, working car. A modified one might run as much as $200,000.
The Dukes of Hazzard – 1969 Dodge Charger
One of the most recognizable cars from ’80s television is the General Lee, the 1969 Dodge Charger used in “The Dukes of Hazzard.” The car is painted bright orange with the number “01” emblazoned on the doors, while the Confederate Battle Flag is painted across its top.
The car is probably best known for its amazing stunts, but don’t be fooled — the production went through a lot of them. Across the series’ seven seasons, the folks behind “The Dukes of Hazzard” went through at least 329 different cars, destroying as many as two each episode. One of the best-known stunts involves the car flying up into the air after hitting a ramp while the Duke cousins cheer “Yahoo” while it arcs through the air.
If you don’t think that destroys a car’s vital parts, you’d be wrong. The ’69 Dodge Charger is highly collectible and has been featured in numerous series, including being Ghost Rider’s “Hell Charger” in “Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD.” On average, these cars go for around $150,000 in good condition, though a tribute car went for $62,700 in 2022.
Casino Royale – 2007 Aston Martin DBS V12
When it comes to classic cars and movies, the franchise with perhaps the most is James Bond. Beginning in 1962 with “Dr. No,” the Bond franchise exploded to include dozens of movies and plenty of iconic actors. It also features a ton of automobiles, and one of the most impressive arrived in 2006’s “Casino Royale,” which introduces Daniel Craig as the new Bond.
In the film, Bond gets behind the wheel of a beautiful 2007 Aston Martin DBS V12, which didn’t technically exist when the movie was shot. Aston Martin provided the production team with a 2006 model that featured a mockup of the body panels for the 2007 model.
This isn’t apparent when watching the movie, and the car looks incredible. As any enthusiast knows all too well, Aston Martin doesn’t make inexpensive cars, and this model’s MSRP was $256,000 in 2008. You can buy a 2007 model for around $222,000, but condition is everything, and a superb example can run considerably more. Still, if you’re incredibly lucky, they can sometimes sell for $110,000.
Ghostbusters – 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor
While most people weren’t interested in riding around in a hearse, that changed in 1984 when the ECTO-1 found its way to screens in “Ghostbusters.” The white hearse with tons of techno gadgets and the Ghostbusters logo became a cinematic pop culture icon, leading a small number of collectors to get their own versions.
For most people, that wasn’t an easy task, as the car used for the famous hearse was the 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor Futura Duplex, which was a huge vehicle that was used for all sorts of things, including functioning as a limousine and ambulance. It was also a hearse and much more, but there aren’t many of them left in the world.
Getting one from the movies is unlikely, as there are too few, but you can sometimes find them for sale sans modifications for around $231,000. You can also rent a replica through the Volo Car Museum, so there are options. One re-creation sold in 2025 for $297,000, so expect to shell out some serious cash on your way to becoming a semi-professional Ghostbuster.
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off – 1961 Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California
Even if you didn’t know a thing about Ferraris, you probably winced when Cameron (Alan Ruck) destroys his father’s 1961 Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” The car is such a focal point of Ferris and company’s skip day that it stands as one of the most important elements in the movie.
You’ll be happy to know that they didn’t actually destroy a real car because the production couldn’t afford it. They had three different replicas made for the shoot, which used a Moderna Spyder with no engine for the destroyed one seen in the movie. A real Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California sold in 2016 for $17.16 million, which explains the swap.
The real GT Spyder wasn’t worth as much in 1984, but it was still too expensive to destroy for a movie; the replicas were good enough. One of the two that weren’t destroyed sold for almost $400,000 in 2020, so while that’s out of most people’s price range, for a select few, it’s possible to get their hands on a “real” car used in the film.
The Cannonball Run – 1979 Lamborghini Countach LP 400 S
Perhaps one of the most famous racing movies of the 1980s is the Burt Reynolds comedy “The Cannonball Run.” The film is all about the real outlaw road race called the Cannonball Baker Sea-to-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash, which started in Connecticut and ended in California.
Reynolds plays J.J. McClure, and while he drives a 1974 Chevrolet Laguna, that’s not the most impressive car in the movie. That honor goes to the black 1979 Lamborghini Countach LP 400 S driven by Marcie Thatcher (Adrienne Barbeau) and Jill Rivers (Tara Buckman) in the film’s opening credits. The spandex-clad ladies flash some cleavage to distract some pursuing Nevada Highway Patrol officers.
As you can imagine, the car isn’t on the lower end, but you can buy your own version of the 1979 Lamborghini Countach from “Cannonball Run” with enough cash. They average around $536,000 in good condition, though they can sell for nearly $700,000 on the higher end. That’s not bad for a car that had an original MSRP of only $41,000, though that would be $188,595 in 2026 when adjusted for inflation.
Easy Rider – 1969 Harley-Davidson Captain America Chopper
There are tons of great motorcycles seen in movies and TV shows, but when you get right down to it, the most influential comes from “Easy Rider.” The road film sees two bikers make their way across parts of the United States, carrying cash from a drug deal as they ride the open road.
Dennis Hopper plays Billy, while Peter Fonda is Wyatt, and it’s his bike that’s the most iconic. He rides a 1969 Harley-Davidson Chopper with a Stars & Stripes paint job that earned him and the bike the nickname “Captain America.” The chopper is one of the most iconic motorcycles of the 1960s, and because it’s a chopper, you know that it’s already a custom job.
It features an elongated front end and stretched-out frame with a paint job that makes it stand out. The original bike from the film sold in 2024 for a record-smashing $1.35 million, and based on that and other sales figures, they can average as much as $592,000. Don’t let that sticker shock scare you away because some tribute bikes have been built for far less, amounting to around $30,000.
Iron Man – 1967 AC Shelby Cobra
While it would be nice to score Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.) armor from “Iron Man,” that’s pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon. Fortunately, there are other options, and if you pay attention to Stark’s garage, you’ll see that the man has a pretty sweet collection of classic cars.
While it doesn’t get much screen time, one of his most impressive is a 1967 AC Shelby Cobra. These are among the most desirable cars on the market, and it’s painful to see Iron Man crash into his, destroying it as you see in the above image. Thankfully, they didn’t actually smash a real one for the movie and instead opted for a so-called “re-creation rolling chassis.”
This was little more than an aluminum rendition of a ’67 AC Shelby Cobra. One of the rolling chassis sold in 2015 for $24,200, but don’t expect to get the real deal for anywhere near that price. There’s a pretty wide range, depending on condition, but it’s not uncommon to see a ’67 AC Shelby Cobra like the one recreated for “Iron Man” sell for around $1.1 million, while running replicas cost around 10-20% as much.
Goldfinger – 1963 Aston Martin DB5
While the Aston Martin featured in “Casino Royale” is an amazing piece of machinery, the most iconic vehicle from the franchise debuted decades earlier. Bond’s most recognizable car is his 1963 Aston Martin DB5 featured in 1964’s “Goldfinger.” Technically, it was a DB4 with prototype DB5 parts, but most fans couldn’t care less.
While you’ll be hard-pressed to load one with as many gadgets, it’s not impossible. Granted, you’re going to have to star in the next James Bond movie to be able to afford your very own because the ’63 Aston Martin DB5 is one of the most desired and expensive automobiles on the planet. The car’s model appears in eight of the franchise’s movies, though from different years.
Still, the ’63 model is at the top of most collectors’ lists. Aston Martin made 25 re-creations, fitted with plenty of gadgets and gizmos, which boasted a sticker price of $3.63 million, but there’s a cheaper option. A legit ’63 model can often go for as much as $1.7 million, though you might get away with spending only $1.3 million of your hard-earned cash to add one to your collection.
Does your phone have a cracked screen? A battery that barely makes it past 3 PM? Or a camera that captures a blurry mess instead of great memories? You know it’s high time for a new one, and right now, while you’re shopping for the new school year, is probably the best time to make the switch.
The best part is that you don’t need to spend flagship money to get a phone that’ll last you the next few years. Mid-range phones have gotten seriously good of late, closing the gap with flagships where it matters the most, be it battery life, performance, or camera quality. Whether you’re upgrading your own phone or picking one out for your kid before classes start, here are the best mid-range phones worth your money this back-to-school season.
Google Pixel 10a
| Pros | Cons |
| Bright, 120Hz display | Older chip |
| Impressive camera performance | 8GB RAM isn’t enough for some on-device AI features |
| Long-term support window | Low base storage |
| Sleek design |
The Pixel 10a is the phone I’d pick, knowing I wouldn’t have to think about buying another phone for years. Google didn’t chase big upgrades with this year’s A-series refresh, and that’s not exactly a deal-breaker. The 10a offers plenty to like on the hardware front, right from its bright, 120Hz display to its 48MP main shooter that takes great photos in most lighting conditions. Sure, the Tensor G4 is a bit dated and 8GB of RAM isn’t enough to run some of the on-device AI features Google offers, but the Pixel 10a can handle most daily tasks consistently. And that consistency is exactly what you’re paying for.
Google’s suite of useful AI features is a genuinely helpful bonus that you won’t get with any of the other devices on this list, plus the seven-year software support commitment adds another point in its favor. At $499, the Pixel 10a is my top pick for most students, especially if you want the safest, longest-lasting device out there.
Apple iPhone 17e
| Pros | Cons |
| A19 chip offers top-tier performance | 60Hz display |
| MagSafe support | Single rear camera |
| Double base storage | Ugly notch |
| Full access to Apple’s ecosystem |
If you’re upgrading from an older iPhone, you’re probably already knee-deep in Apple’s ecosystem and have an iPad, Mac, or Apple Watch that you’re not about to replace just because your phone’s getting old. In that case, there’s no better pick than the iPhone 17e. Apple finally gave its budget model the upgrade it deserves this year, and it now features an A19 chip that can handle most everyday tasks and casual gaming without breaking a sweat. Base storage has also been doubled to 256GB at the same $599 starting price, and MagSafe support has made it to the “e” lineup for the first time, which means you can finally use the same chargers, car mounts, and accessories as the rest of the iPhone family.
The display still runs at 60Hz, which will take some getting used to if you’re switching from a phone with a high refresh rate panel, and you’ll be limited to a single rear camera with no ultrawide lens. But the camera you do get is pretty solid, and the phone’s overall speed more than makes up for what it lacks in screen refresh rate. The iPhone 17e is the cheapest way into Apple’s ecosystem, whether you’re upgrading from an old iPhone or picking your first because everyone around you already has one.
Samsung Galaxy A57
| Pros | Cons |
| Premium design | Exynos 1680 is underpowered |
| Stunning Super AMOLED display | Unremarkable ultrawide and macro lenses |
| Long-lasting battery | Pricey for what you get |
| Long-term software support |
Pick up the Galaxy A57 without knowing the price, and you’d most likely guess wrong. Samsung’s latest mid-ranger looks and feels a lot like its much more expensive S series brethren with its glass back, aluminum frame, stunning Super AMOLED display, and familiar camera arrangement. The phone is genuinely great to look at, whether you’re reading in class or watching something during a study break. The battery also holds up quite well, easily making it through a full day without you needing to reach for a charger.
But under the hood, things aren’t as flashy. Its Exynos 1680 chip is a modest step up from last year’s model, and it isn’t as fast as what you’ll get with the other phones on this list. The camera setup also carries over unchanged from the Galaxy A56, with the main 50MP shooter proving good enough in most scenarios and the ultrawide and macro offering nothing to write home about. At $549, this one’s only for Samsung loyalists who like One UI. If that doesn’t sound like you, the Pixel 10a will serve you better and save you 50 bucks that you can use to get some accessories or school supplies.
Nothing Phone 4a Pro
| Pros | Cons |
| Eye-catching design with Glyph Matrix display | Only IP65 rating |
| Strong performance with Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 and 12GB RAM | Three years of OS upgrades |
| Bright and high refresh rate display | Not as good value as the Pixel |
| 50MP periscope camera with 3.5x optical zoom |
Put the Nothing Phone 4a Pro next to any other device on this list, and it’s the one people will ask about. Nothing refined its design this year, swapping the fully transparent back for a unibody metal build with a transparent camera island housing three lenses in a unique arrangement, plus the Glyph Matrix display for timers, notifications, and more. Under the hood, you get a Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 chip and 12GB of RAM, which give it enough muscle to power through most daily tasks.
The 6.8-inch display gets plenty bright with a rated peak brightness of 5,000 nits and is also great for gaming, offering a refresh rate of 144Hz. Camera performance holds its own against the Pixel 10a and the iPhone 17e too, with the 50MP periscope zoom lens giving you reach neither of those phones can match. The Phone 4a Pro has two notable tradeoffs in terms of durability and longevity, with the device featuring an IP65 rating and Nothing committing to only three major OS upgrades. At $599, the Phone 4a Pro is for anyone who wants a device with real personality that still delivers on performance, so long as you’re willing to trade some durability and long-term support to get it.
Motorola Moto G Power 2026
| Pros | Cons |
| Large 5,200mAh battery | Dimensity 6300 isn’t the strongest performer |
| IP68, IP69, and MIL-STD-810H certification | LCD rather than OLED display |
| Most affordable on this list | Only two years of promised OS upgrades |
| Cool color options |
Ask most people what they want from a phone, and a long-lasting battery usually ranks higher than having the fastest chip. That’s the whole case for the Moto G Power 2026. Its 5,200mAh battery is the largest in this lineup, and can easily stretch across a busy day without you hunting for an outlet. Motorola also built it to survive whatever you throw at it, with IP68 and IP69 ratings for dust and water resistance, plus MIL-STD-810H certification covering drops and general abuse, making it a great option if you have butter fingers.
However, the Moto G Power 2026 isn’t the most capable phone on this list. Its MediaTek Dimensity 6300 isn’t as powerful, its 6.8-inch display has an LCD panel, its cameras are unremarkable, and software support is pretty thin too, with Motorola promising just a couple of years of OS updates. The $399 price tag for the 128GB model will be another draw for anyone on a tight budget, but the battery life and durability are the real draw for this device.
Mid-range phones aren’t the compromise they used to be, and this list proves it. Whether you’re chasing battery life, a great camera, a phone that can take a beating, or one that looks like nothing else on campus, there’s a pick above that gets you there without breaking the bank.
My tote bag is more a mobile workstation than a carrier. On any given day, it’s hauling a 16-inch laptop, noise-canceling headphones, chargers, my daily planner, a water bottle, and whatever gadgets I’m testing that week. Plenty of leather totes look beautiful on day one, but far fewer are designed to hold up against the reality of transporting thousands of dollars’ worth of tech every single day.
That’s why Leatherology surprised me.
After months of rotating between the Mia Horizontal Tote, Transit Travel Tote, and Large Zippered Downtown Tote, I found myself thinking less about the leather—though it’s undeniably excellent—and more about how each bag has been intentionally designed to fit specific workflows.
But the first thing you notice, of course, is that leather. Leatherology uses semi-aniline, drum-dyed pebbled leather that is soft and supple, making it feel broken in from day one without being overly delicate.
Courtesy of Leatherology
Courtesy of Leatherology
The hardware is clean, the branding is subtle, and the totes don’t feel ostentatious, which I appreciate. These bags look expensive because the quality of the materials and craftsmanship speak for themselves, not because there’s a flashy logo plastered on them. And if you want something more personal, every model can be monogrammed.
As a tech reviewer, though, I find that aesthetics go only so far. What impressed me most about these bags is their functionality, which is something I can’t say about many luxury bags. The straps remained comfortable even when I loaded the bags with bulky gear. The interiors are well-organized, preventing cables and accessories from getting lost in a single, cavernous compartment, yet they don’t feel over-engineered. Each bag is sturdy and secure enough to protect your valuables.
Courtesy of Leatherology
Courtesy of Leatherology
Built Better Than It Looks
The Mia Horizontal Tote ($330) is the most relaxed of the three and has become my go-to bag for the weekend. Its wider silhouette is ideal for farmers market runs, shopping trips, or afternoons working from a coffee shop when I don’t need my entire desk setup. My Kindle, headphones, a sweater, and small essentials all fit comfortably with room to spare. Two interior slip pockets kept accessories within reach, while the removable leather pouch became my designated home for my card holder and lip balm. The magnetic closure allows for easy access during everyday errands, but because it lacks a dedicated laptop sleeve or zippered top, I wouldn’t use it as a work bag for my commutes.
That’s where the Transit Tote ($465) comes in. This is the bag that feels purpose-built for work trips, where a personal item often doubles as your office. It features two exterior pockets, nine interior pockets, two zippered compartments, and a padded laptop sleeve that fits up to a 16-inch laptop. I could separate chargers, travel documents, and toiletries into designated, well-organized spaces. A hidden trolley sleeve slides over rolling luggage, and the zippered top adds an extra layer of security at airports. Between the short leather handles and longer shoulder straps, it’s also comfortable to carry through terminals without constantly shifting your grip. Plus, it feels much more heavy-duty than the Mia Horizontal, whose straps I sometimes worry might give out when the bag is overpacked. There’s also a foldable bottom gusset with a removable support panel that helps the bag maintain its structured silhouette. During my testing, it fit comfortably under an airline seat, but it’s always worth confirming measurements with your specific aircraft.
Tech
Back-to-school phone shopping on a tight budget? Here’s the one phone I’d recommend without hesitation
Somewhere between the last day of school and the first day back, your phone conked out. Perhaps the screen shattered after a particularly nasty fall, or its battery regularly gives up by noon, or apps take so long to launch that by the time they do, you’ve forgotten why you opened them in the first place. You don’t think it’ll last another school year, but between all the school supplies and everything else, a budget phone is all your wallet can handle right now.
Fortunately for you, cheap phones have come a long way, offering better screens, bigger batteries, and more capable cameras than devices launched just a couple of years ago. Since you’re already prepping to head back to school, this is as good a time as any to lay your old phone to rest and lock in an upgrade. But unfortunately, the timing isn’t great for the smartphone industry in general, and that has had a real impact on entry-level phones.
The ongoing memory and storage shortage has driven some manufacturers to increase prices. It has also impacted availability and, in at least one case, pushed a major manufacturer out of the US market entirely. That’s left the field thinner than usual, with only two phones that still earn a clear recommendation at budget pricing. Here are those picks, plus what dropped out of contention this year.
Samsung Galaxy A17: The safest budget pick
| Pros | Cons |
| Six years of OS and security updates, unmatched at this price | Exynos 1330 is showing its age |
| 6.7-inch AMOLED display with 90Hz refresh rate | 4GB RAM on the base model is limiting |
| 5,000mAh battery easily clears a full day | Ultrawide and macro cameras are essentially filler |
| Works on any US carrier | IP54 rating only protects against splashes |
| $35 upgrade to 256GB storage also doubles RAM to 8GB |
Samsung’s most affordable Galaxy A-series device is the one I’d confidently hand to a student who just needs a reliable phone that’ll survive the next few years without breaking the bank. Samsung backs the Galaxy A17 with six years of OS and security updates. That’s unheard of for a $200 device, and it’s the single biggest reason this is the budget phone to buy right now.
Its 6.7-inch AMOLED display is gorgeous to look at and, with its 90Hz refresh rate, it will feel smoother if you’re upgrading from an old phone with a 60Hz panel. Gorilla Glass Victus on the front means it can survive the kind of drop that would spiderweb a cheaper screen, and the plastic build, while not glamorous, doesn’t feel flimsy in hand either. The 5,000mAh battery can easily clear a full day without needing a midday charge, but you should tame your expectations when it comes to performance.
The Exynos 1330 powering the device is a few generations old, and you may notice occasional stutters when opening apps or scrolling through pages. But that’s mostly due to the 4GB RAM on the base model. Upgrading to the 256GB storage variant for $35 extra will get you 8GB RAM, which will resolve this hitch for the most part and even improve multitasking performance.
The triple-camera setup on the back is mostly marketing, with the main 50MP sensor pulling all the weight while the other two are nothing worth writing home about. The device has an IP54 rating that won’t survive a dunk in a pool, but it’ll handle a spilled drink or a walk in the rain just fine.
Compromises like these are expected from devices in the sub-$300 price range, so they’re not entirely deal-breakers. What matters more is whether the phone you buy today still looks sharp, gets through most of the day with few hiccups, and receives updates by the time you graduate, and that’s exactly where the Galaxy A17 delivers. It works on all carriers and is the safer of the two options in this piece.
TCL NXTPAPER 70 Pro: A strong alternative, if you’re on T-Mobile
| Pros | Cons |
| 8GB RAM and 256GB storage as standard | $199.99 price requires signing up for T-Mobile or Metro, unlocked price is $329.99 |
| Larger 5,200mAh battery | Carrier compatibility claims are vague and require confirmation |
| Unique NXTPAPER 120Hz display | TCL doesn’t match Samsung’s software support window |
| IP68 rating offers full submersion protection |
The TCL NXTPAPER 70 Pro is a great pick for students who will spend several hours a day staring at a screen and want their eyes to survive the semester. It offers 8GB of RAM, 256GB of storage, a 5,200mAh battery, and an IP68 rating, giving it a significant leg up over the Galaxy A17.
Its headline feature is the NXTPAPER display itself, which switches the 6.9-inch, 120Hz screen between full color and a matte, paper-like Ink Mode at the press of a switch. The Ink Mode cuts down glare and is genuinely useful for a student working through PDFs, textbooks, or lecture slides late at night.
The pricing has a major caveat, though. The $199.99 figure you’ll see attached to this phone requires signing up for service through T-Mobile or Metro by T-Mobile. But if you want to buy it unlocked, the price jumps to $329.99. TCL also doesn’t have Samsung’s track record on update speed or longevity, so that’s another thing to consider.
It’s also worth pointing out that while the device’s Amazon listing claims that it’s compatible with almost all US carriers, the fine print tells the real story. “Carrier compatibility may vary depending on SIM type, carrier-specific rules, SIM configuration, or plan provisions. Please check with your carrier for activation before use.”
You should take TCL’s claim of carrier compatibility with a grain of salt and confirm whether it works with your specific carrier before buying. Or better yet, stick with the Galaxy A17 if you’re not already on T-Mobile or Metro.
The phones that fell out of contention
A few months ago, more phones would have made it to this list, like the Moto G (2026), the Moto G Power (2026), the CMF Phone 2 Pro, and devices from OnePlus’ Nord lineup. But not anymore.
The Moto G (2026) launched at $199.99 with a 5,200mAh battery that posted some of the best screen-on time of any budget phone this year. That, despite its weaker Dimensity 6300 chip, two years of software support, and HD+ display, would’ve landed it a spot on this list. But Motorola bumped its price up to $299.99 in April, and at that price, it makes no sense, especially considering the Galaxy A17 offers better software support and a sharper display for $100 less.
The Moto G Power (2026) had a stronger case despite its own aging chip and shallow two-year update promise, thanks to 8GB of RAM, a sharper display, and wireless charging support. It launched at $299.99, competitive enough to earn a spot. Then it jumped to $399.99 in the same round of hikes, making it twice the price of the A17 while offering only slightly more.
The CMF Phone 2 Pro at its introductory price of $279 would’ve been the wildcard pick, but it’s sold in the US only through a beta program with limited availability, no carrier certification, and a 14-day warranty. That’s too risky a buy for a student.
And OnePlus’ Nord lineup, despite years of solid value-for-money offerings, isn’t worth recommending for quite the obvious reason. The company recently confirmed that it’s exiting the US market, and while it has promised continued software updates and customer support, there’s no telling how long that promise will hold.
Price hikes took out two of these phones, limited availability took out a third, and a market exit took out a brand that could have offered the fourth, leaving the Galaxy A17 as the one clean pick and the NXTPAPER 70 Pro as the one with an asterisk. If you have some wiggle room in your budget and don’t want to settle for the Galaxy A17 or take a chance on the NXTPAPER 70 Pro, our picks of the best mid-range phones for this back-to-school season may have what you’re looking for.
Vintage audio is not short of famous amplifiers. We have covered the Pilot 602, Fisher 400, an RCA EL84 console amplifier, the Muzak 975A, vintage Marantz components and the McIntosh MC2105. Some were elegant. Others looked as though they had been removed from the basement of a municipal building during a fire drill. All earned their reputations because the circuits mattered more than the marketing.
The new Pilot Radio 232 Stereophonic Power Amplifier is interesting because it is not merely another old name purchased by people who found a logo and a container of generic electronics.
Pilot was relaunched by company founder Isidor Goldberg’s great grandson, Barak Isidor Epstein, with engineering by Damon Coffman of Coffman Labs. The $4,790 amplifier is based on Pilot’s 1959 “Curtain of Sound” design and is built in Portland and Dallas.
EL84 Tubes and 15 Watts Per Channel
The 232 delivers 15 watts per channel from EL84 output tubes and is described by Pilot as a pure Class A design.
The construction includes custom transformers made in the United States, vintage oil in paper capacitors and point to point hand wiring. Speaker outputs are provided for 4 and 8 ohm loads, while separate sensitivity and balance controls are included for each channel.
Fifteen watts is not a lot, but it is enough with the right loudspeakers. The Pilot 602 we covered used the same EL84 tube family and worked best with speakers offering sensitivity around 90dB or higher. The new 232 should make sense with DeVore Fidelity, Klipsch Heritage, Audio Note, Omega, PureAudioProject and other efficient loudspeakers with relatively benign impedance curves.
This is not the amplifier for Magnepan owners, difficult four ohm floorstanders or anyone trying to recreate Madison Square Garden in a 400 square foot room. Sorry Swifties.
Balanced Inputs and a Real Headphone Output
Pilot provides both RCA and balanced XLR inputs, with the XLR connections feeding the differential amplifier stage directly.
The front panel also includes a four pin XLR balanced headphone output, which is highly unusual on a stereo tube power amplifier. That gives the 232 potential appeal for owners of balanced dynamic and planar magnetic headphones who want to use the same amplifier for speakers and private listening.
Pilot has not yet published headphone output power, output impedance or recommended headphone loads, so it would be premature to assume the 232 will drive every HIFIMAN or Audeze model with complete authority. A four pin socket is useful; it is not a substitute for specifications.
A Proper Family Revival
Pilot Electric Manufacturing Company was founded in Brooklyn in 1919 by Isidor Goldberg and produced radios, shortwave receivers, televisions, cinema electronics and hi-fi components. Pilot moved exclusively into high fidelity in 1952 and introduced the original “Curtain of Sound” stereo concept in 1959. The company also worked with Sid Smith and Dick Sequerra, both of whom later became associated with Marantz.
The company was sold in 1962 and disappeared during the following decade before being revived by the Goldberg family in 2025.
That family continuity does not guarantee great sound, but it gives the project more credibility than a trademark revival created around products that have nothing to do with the original company.
The Matching Pilot Preamplifier
Pilot currently offers one other major component: the Pilot Phono and Line Preamplifier, priced from $3,590.
It uses two 12AX7 and two 12AU7 tubes, passive RIAA equalization, two line inputs and selectable moving magnet and moving coil phono inputs. MC gain is selectable between 46dB and 52dB before the line stage, while the preamplifier can be ordered for 120V or 240V operation.
A complete Pilot electronics system therefore starts at $8,380 before cables or replacement tubes. Pilot also sells branded PSVANE tubes, RCA interconnects and speaker cables.
What Is Still Missing?
Pilot has published the core design information, but several specifications remain unavailable:
- Complete tube complement
- Frequency response
- Input sensitivity and impedance
- Total harmonic distortion
- Signal to noise ratio
- Headphone output power
- Dimensions and weight
- Power consumption
- Warranty details
Those are not unreasonable requests for a $4,790 amplifier. Pilot has done the difficult part by reviving a historically important circuit and building it domestically. Finishing the specification sheet should not require another 67 years.
Who Is It For?
The Pilot 232 is for listeners using efficient loudspeakers who want an American built tube amplifier without DACs, streaming apps or firmware updates. It should pair well with quality tube preamplifiers and simple active line stages, while the balanced headphone output gives it broader appeal than most vintage inspired power amplifiers.
Buyers with inefficient speakers or large rooms should look for more power.
Hear It at Southwest Audio Fest 2026
Pilot Radio will demonstrate the 232 in Room 732 at Southwest Audio Fest with DeVore Fidelity loudspeakers and Prosper Cables. The matching Pilot preamplifier will also be part of the system.
Southwest Audio Fest 2026
- Dates: July 23 through July 25, 2026
- Venue: Sheraton Dallas Hotel
- Location: Dallas, Texas
- Thursday: 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.
- Friday and Saturday: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
- Pilot Radio: Room 732
The Bottom Line
The Pilot Radio 232 is more interesting than the average vintage brand revival because the history, family connection and circuit are all real.
Its 15 watts will limit loudspeaker choices, but efficient speakers and EL84 amplifiers have been making beautiful music together for decades. The balanced inputs and headphone output also make the 232 far more useful than a strict reproduction of the 1959 original.
At $4,790, it is not inexpensive, but neither is it wandering into the absurd end of boutique tube amplification. Pilot now needs to publish the missing specifications and prove that the new company can provide the service and support that owners of vintage Pilot equipment have been forced to find elsewhere for half a century.
Heritage gets attention. Execution keeps the tubes glowing.
Price & Availability
The Pilot Radio 232 costs $4,790 and is available now through Pilot Radio and selected U.S. and Canadian dealers.
Orders ship from Texas with an estimated two week lead time. Ground shipping is included for U.S. customers, while Dallas Fort Worth buyers receive local delivery and setup.
For more information: pilotradio.com
Related Reading:
Entertainment43 seconds ago
Raunchy 70s Sci-Fi Adventure Was Shut Down By Los Angeles Police
NewsBeat4 minutes ago
Nowhere to run Andy! New PM Burnham goes for a jog as latest migrants cross the Channel two days after 165 made the trip in single boat
Business4 minutes ago
$743 Million Jackpot, 10th-Largest Prize in Lottery History
-
Fashion1 day agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Politics6 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
News Videos6 days agoBig Money Is Entering XRP
-
Crypto World4 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
Tech5 days agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech5 days agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
NewsBeat5 days agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Business4 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Entertainment4 days agoJohnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
-
Crypto World3 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Tech5 days agoWatch Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley discuss the future of surveillance at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026
-
NewsBeat5 days agoShanghai science forum photos show China’s AI and robotics advances in rivalry with US
-
Crypto World5 days agoCircle’s President Sold Over 360,000 Shares, The Filings Explain Why
-
Tech6 days agoSubway Sandwich Computers Get a Second Life as Gaming Machines
-
Sports2 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
News Videos2 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Fashion2 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Tech6 days agoHow To Use Claude’s Reflect Dashboard And Learn When It’s Time To Touch Grass
-
Tech5 days agoThe 35 Best Board Games for Family Game Night
-
Entertainment6 days agoStephen Colbert Returns to Social Media After Late Show End
You must be logged in to post a comment Login