Zoom is warning of a critical vulnerability in its desktop client and software development kit for Windows that could be exploited by an unauthenticated party to hijack accounts.

Discovered internally, the security issue is tracked as CVE-2026-53412 and received a severity score of 9.8 out of 10.

In an advisory this week, the messaging platform says that the flaw affects Zoom Workplace for Windows before version 7.0.0, the Windows VDI Client before versions 7.0.10, 6.6.15, and 6.5.18, and the Meeting SDK for Windows before version 7.0.0.

Zoom Workplace, formerly known as Zoom, is a desktop collaboration application for video meetings, group chat, VoIP phone calls, calendar, email, document collaboration, whiteboards, and AI-powered productivity features.

The Windows desktop client is widely deployed and used by millions of individuals and organizations worldwide.

The vendor did not provide any technical details about the flaw in the bulletin, and just described it as an improper input validation issue.

“Improper Input Validation in Zoom Desktop Client for Windows, Zoom VDI Client for Windows, and Zoom Meeting SDK for Windows may allow an unauthenticated user to conduct an account takeover via network access,” reads the security advisory.

To mitigate the risks stemming from CVE-2026-53412, the company recommends that users apply the latest updates.

Zoom’s newest security patches also address the following less severe flaws:

• CVE-2026-53410: high-severity TOCTOU (time-of-check to time-of-use) race condition affecting Zoom Workplace for Windows before 7.0.5, Zoom Workplace VDI Client and VDI Plugin before 6.5.17/6.6.14, Zoom Rooms for Windows before 7.0.5, and Remote Control for Zoom Contact Center before 7.0.0. The flaw could allow an authenticated local user to escalate privileges during installation or uninstallation.
• CVE-2026-53409: high-severity improper privilege management flaw affecting Zoom Rooms for Windows before version 7.1.0 that could allow an authenticated user with local access to escalate privileges.
• CVE-2026-53411: high-severity improper input validation flaw affecting the Zoom Workplace VDI Plugin for Windows before version 6.6.14 that could allow an authenticated user with local access to escalate privileges.

At the time of disclosure, there are no indications that any of the vulnerabilities that Zoom fixed are being exploited in attacks.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

We’ve all had some version of the nightmare: You’ve been inexplicably thrown back into high school, and now you’re standing in front of the class. You’re about to give a speech, but you can’t remember a word. The panic is exacerbated by the faces of students staring at you, some hiding snickers and others openly laughing. Everyone knows what’s going on but you.

I was reminded of this bad dream over the past few years. As my Indigenous school’s instructional technology coordinator, I have seen my office transform from a routine integration hub into a digital confessional. Colleagues and teachers who are trying to navigate destabilizing technology changes slip inside and close the door. Some are looking for practical technology triage, or just a safe space to vent their frustrations, only to recount a similar nightmare. 

For these educators, the experience triggers a sharp wave of panic, a sudden realization that the pedagogical ground has shifted beneath their feet and they can no longer trust their own instincts or traditional technology guardrails. But what follows the panic is a deep, stinging embarrassment. 

With open and hopeful hearts, these teachers publicly praised student writing, extolling the hard work and growth they believed the student had demonstrated, only to find themselves surrounded by the giggles of classmates who already knew the truth: the writing had been fully generated by an AI tool.

The students had technically succeeded while learning very little, a phenomenon Micah Miner describes as unproductive success in “Beyond Secondary Orality.” As a result, teachers and administrators are left trying to respond to tools and behaviors they don’t yet fully understand and have never been trained to address. 

These individual instances of unproductive success were not isolated classroom frustrations; they were early signals of a policy vacuum that would soon overwhelm our entire school system. The challenge becomes infinitely more complex at the school board level, where drafting a formal policy requires balancing the inevitable push toward AI integration with the deeply nuanced and often conflicting perspectives around AI held among students and families in the Native community. Before an AI policy could establish clear lines of accountability for staff and students and safeguard Indigenous data sovereignty, students were already using AI tools outside the school day to engage in cognitive offloading, having essays written for them. 

Because neither an official AI policy nor an academic honesty policy existed, teachers and administrators were forced into the uncomfortable position of responding to what many perceived as cheating without the guidance, definitions or training necessary to do so consistently. 

The problem wasn’t just that students discovered AI before adults did; it was an economy-of-scale issue. Being a one-person technology department meant that the burden of finding a solution and making high-level policy recommendations rested entirely on me. No matter how urgent the crisis, a lone coordinator cannot instantly scale the resources an entire school community needs to decide what AI means, how it should be used, or how we should teach students to navigate it responsibly.

Schools often rely on common sense, hoping that everyone will land on the same understanding. Unfortunately for us, AI has exposed an uncomfortable truth: common sense is often just unspoken assumptions masquerading as policy. Without a common understanding of AI use, implementation practices, potential risks and benefits, schools risk creating inconsistent and inequitable experiences for both students and educators. This raises the question: who decides what is reasonable or what makes a decision good? 

Answering that question didn’t require finding a perfect, pre-packaged solution. Ultimately, it required a small but dedicated team of school leaders, educators and me to build one from the ground up. 

Building a Framework on Common Sense and Community 

For the past several years, it has been my job to learn as much as I can to create our own AI common sense, one based on the mission of our school to prepare our students to carry forward the wisdom of our ancestors for the benefit of future generations. 

My first step was to seek out as much information as possible from trusted sources. This led me to the International Society for Transforming Education and their AI Explorations course, which established my foundational knowledge around AI and machine learning and created a strong network of other professionals who were also trying to navigate without a map. 

My second step was to reach out to my school’s stakeholders to ensure the work on AI benefited from as many diverse perspectives as possible. As a new instructional technology coordinator in 2017, one of the first things I did when establishing my program at Indian Community School was to create a Future Ready Team, a cross-functional group of teachers, IT and administrators. 

These Future Ready Team members became the resident experts during their two-year terms, learning to communicate with vendors and piloting new software and devices. When the issue of AI policy arose, it was this team that rose to the challenge and continued the research process along with me.  

After months of research and collaboration with the Future Ready Team, my binder was overflowing with highlighted articles, ideas, notes and guidance documents — proof that some habits from my 1990s school days die hard — while my computer held an equally overwhelming collection of bookmarked tabs. 

Faced with this data overload, I knew my job was to translate this research into action. The solid footing we needed was a comprehensive AI framework, so I took the lead on designing a model that would serve as a strong foundation for building knowledge and be flexible enough to adapt to the ever-changing AI landscape. 

I personally curated and authored each layer of this framework to meet our school’s specific needs. This included a core policy I developed using resources from the U.S. Department of Education, UNESCO, the Publications office of the European Union and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. I also drafted staff AI guidance based on the AI Guidance for Schools Toolkit by TeachAI, revamped our student responsible use policy to incorporate AI guardrails and constructed a visual stoplight of AI usage for classrooms based on the work done in our home state of North Carolina. 

The framework also needed to do more than establish expectations; it needed to support educators in meeting them by addressing critical issues such as safeguarding personally identifiable information, protecting intellectual property and honoring Indigenous data sovereignty. 

Policies Can’t Teach People

While these protocols were a necessary first step in securing our digital environment, a framework is only as effective as the people implementing it. Creating the policy and guidance documents was only part of the work; true equity emerges in a school community’s capacity to respond, specifically having the staff, training, time and funding needed to translate policy into practice. 

Knowing that even the best guidance will sit unused without these resources, we ensured our framework went beyond rules to provide active opportunities for people to learn, question and build understanding together. 

Before students were given access to AI tools on school devices, staff engaged in professional development designed to build AI literacy and confidence. Learning opportunities continued through local and state conferences, while families and community members were invited to join the conversation at an AI literacy night. The goal was not simply to introduce a new technology, but to build a shared foundation for its responsible use. The outcomes of this collective effort extended far beyond compliance. 

Teachers who had previously felt overwhelmed by the sudden influx of these tools gained the confidence needed to navigate them, shifting their approach from policing technology to guiding its purposeful use. 

Similarly, our engagement with families provided parents and community members with a transparent look at what AI usage actually looks like in classrooms. This shared clarity transformed potential anxiety into partnership, ensuring the entire school community was aligned around a unified approach that protects student critical thinking while fostering academic readiness. 

Enduring Understandings Benefit All

Ultimately, this journey has taught me that AI common sense isn’t something we can simply mandate or print out. It isn’t found neatly tucked inside a binder, no matter how many national frameworks we compile. True common sense has to be built intentionally through the collaborative and sometimes uncomfortable work of research, reflection and learning alongside one another. 

While a policy can draw the lines on a map, it is the shared knowledge and trust within a school community that actually gives us the solid footing to move forward. 

At Indian Community School, that forward path is always guided by the principle of thinking seven generations ahead. It is a grounding reminder that the choices we make today about AI are not just about managing next week’s essays or updating a student handbook. They are about shaping students’ learning habits and critical thinking abilities long after they leave us. 

For schools everywhere, the challenge now is to look past the establishment of compliance. We must close our binders, sit down with our communities and commit to the slower, more deliberate work of building shared understanding around AI. We have to stop racing to build rules and instead start investing in the training, time and relationships that ground our educators for whatever comes next. 

Apple has marginally increased the cost of its individual AppleCare+ subscription, costing consumers an extra 50 cents per month to protect their Mac or iPad.

Just like any other subscription, warranty and repair services often go up in price over time. On July 15, Apple did just that to AppleCare+.

The price for the monthly AppleCare+ packages increased by 50 cents per month, or $5 per year for the annual plan, reports Bloomberg.

For example, the AppleCare+ package for a 13-inch MacBook Air now costs $7.99 per month or $79.99 per year, versus $7.49 and $74.99 previously. The Mac mini now starts at $4.49 per month or $44.99 per year for coverage, while a 16-inch MacBook Pro is $15.99 per month or $159.99 per year.

On the iPad side, a base iPad is $5.99 per month or $59.99 per year, and an 11-inch M4 iPad Air is $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year. The M5 iPad Pro is either $10.99 or $11.99 per month or $109.99 or $119.99 per year, depending on the size.

AppleCare One, Apple’s plan for protecting multiple devices for a flat rate, still starts at $19.99 per month to cover three devices. Additional products can be added at an unchanged $5.99 per month.

While the price is going up for sign-ups for new plans, existing subscribers will be grandfathered in under the old pricing. It’s not clear right now how long the grandfathering will last, but presumably it is until the next renewal.

The price change also only affects Macs and iPads. While this would normally impact the iPhone too, Apple is anticipated to do so this fall, alongside its iPhone 18 generation launches.

Always AI’s Fault: IBM took the unusual step of warning shareholders ahead of its financial results for the second quarter of 2026. Revenue is still growing slightly, but the industry’s AI-driven FOMO is expected to significantly affect the company’s prospects across some of its most important product lines.

In a recent letter to investors, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna explained that the company experienced some unexpected shortfalls in its latest financial performance. The former pioneer of the personal computer industry now primarily sells software, cloud services, and mainframe systems, but potential customers have recently scaled back major mainframe investments because the AI boom is pushing companies to prioritize spending on memory chips, storage drives, and GPUs instead.

According to the preliminary figures shared in Krishna’s letter, IBM remains in solid shape. The company’s revenue is expected to grow by 1% in the second quarter of 2026, reaching $17.2 billion. Software revenue is projected to increase by 5%, while Infrastructure revenue is expected to decline by 7%.

IBM recently prepared the launch of its new Z17 mainframe, and the company had already expected Infrastructure revenue to decline by a “low-singlet” digit percentage in the second quarter and throughout the year. However, according to Krishna, clients decided in the final weeks of June to shift corporate spending away from IBM mainframes and toward servers, storage, and memory products.

Customers were apparently pushed to secure additional hardware components before Big Tech companies and AI firms could acquire every memory chip and hard disk drive available. As SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son recently said, the AI industry is expected to continue investing trillions of dollars in new and unprecedented data center projects, despite growing signs that the AI bubble could eventually begin to unravel.

This AI-driven shift had a significant impact on IBM’s client spending patterns, Krishna said. The US company had already anticipated some supply chain-related disruptions but did not expect the scale of the change in customers’ capital expenditure priorities. Other factors affecting Big Blue’s mainframe (Infrastructure) business include cybersecurity concerns and the company’s inability to quickly adapt to rapidly changing market conditions.

Following Krishna’s letter, IBM’s stock suffered a 25% decline, marking the company’s worst single-day performance in history. Preliminary revenue figures came in below analysts’ expectations, with analysts forecasting that the quarter would close at $17.86 billion.

At any rate, IBM is still highlighting some positive aspects of its financial results despite the overall disappointing quarter.

Big Blue’s strongest-performing products include Red Hat, which is expected to grow by 11% compared with the previous quarter. The company is also launching Lightwell, a service designed to leverage Anthropic’s Mythos AI frontier technology to improve open-source security. Customers will need to pay a subscription fee to access it.

Apple sued OpenAI last week over alleged hardware trade secrets theft.

OpenAI is pitting its AI capabilities against the likes of Amazon and Google with its very first consumer gadget, a “mobile, screen-free smart speaker”, according to a Bloomberg report.

The publication’s sources said the new device is designed to be a next-generation, ChatGPT-powered home computer, and meant to be a physical embodiment of the AI chatbot.

Sources told journalist Mark Gurman that the device is meant to be a “human-like AI companion” that stays at home and controls smart-home appliances, responds to queries and plays media – tapping into OpenAI’s chart-leading ChatGPT models for these capabilities.

Similar devices, such as Amazon Alexa, Apple Home and Google Home, are already widely available on the market, but OpenAI is seemingly attempting to make upgrades to existing model standards. According to Bloomberg’s report, OpenAI is hinging on its ability to connect with users on a “human-like level”.

The new smart speaker is expected to become “increasingly personalised” over time as it continues to gather data on its users, including via reading emails.

“The speaker incorporates mechanical elements that can move on their own, creating a sense that it is alive and not just an object responding to commands,” read the report.

Though described as a speaker, the device, which is still under development, will include a camera along with other sensors to help it better understand context, sources said. It will also come with a rechargeable battery.

The speaker will communicate via the new ChatGPT voice model GPT-Live that was rolled out earlier this month. According to the AI giant, the model is capable of speaking with a cadence similar to humans, and can listen and speak at the same time.

GPT-Live “make[s] talking with AI feel much more like having a real conversation”, OpenAI said at the time of its launch.

Unlike its biggest direct competitor, Anthropic, which has a narrowed focus on the enterprise AI market, OpenAI is expanding its scope into the heavily populated consumer gadgets market.

The tech giant, which has shaky plans to go public this year, has shut down less profitable ventures such as the Sora video generation model and its standalone AI browser Atlas.

The company spent $6.5bn last summer to acquire Io, a hardware start-up co-founded by Apple design veteran Jony Ive and OpenAI’s current chief hardware officer Tang Yew Tan. And by November, it had finished developing its first device prototypes.

Its hardware division is currently developing five different products, but hopes to one day create a mobile AI device capable of replacing the smartphone.

The news comes as Apple, in a fresh lawsuit last week, accused OpenAI and its hardware division of stealing trade secrets.

The iPhone maker named Tan, its former VP of product design for iPhone and Apple Watches, in the suit, and accused OpenAI of taking part in a “coordinated pattern of misconduct” to gain access to confidential information about its unreleased products.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Google’s new Home Speaker was already more interesting than the average $99 smart speaker because it was the company’s first audio product designed specifically around Gemini for Home. It can now do something far more useful than answer questions, control the lights, or quietly confirm that Orwell lacked imagination about consumer electronics.

One or two Google Home Speakers can connect wirelessly to the Google TV Streamer and become its primary audio system. A single speaker replaces the television’s built-in sound, while two speakers can operate as a stereo pair and enable Google’s new Spatial Audio processing.

The complete two-speaker setup costs $299.97 before tax: $99.99 for the Google TV Streamer and $99.99 for each Home Speaker. Existing Google TV Streamer owners can add the stereo pair for $199.98. That puts the system below most premium soundbars and makes it potentially useful for bedrooms, apartments, offices, and smaller living rooms where an AVR, subwoofer, and several loudspeakers would be excessive.

Related Reviews:

Google Finally Connects Its Speakers to the Television

Google has had smart speakers, streaming hardware, multiroom audio, and voice control for years, but it never combined them into a particularly convincing television sound system.

The 2026 Google Home Speaker begins to close that gap. Each compact speaker uses a single 58mm full-range driver designed for omnidirectional playback. It also supports Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.4, Thread 1.3, Matter, and Google Cast speaker groups, while Gemini for Home handles voice commands and smart-home control.

Setup is handled through either the Google TV interface or Google Home app. Users can select up to two speakers, place them beside the television, assign the left channel, and activate Spatial Audio. The setup process asks for the approximate viewing distance and the distance between the speakers so Google can adjust its processing to the room.

Google says the two-speaker system simulates surround sound and creates the sensation that audio is arriving from multiple directions rather than only from the conventional left and right channels. It requires spatial-audio-encoded content from a supported streaming service.

That should provide wider imaging and greater immersion than most television speakers, which are forced into increasingly thin cabinets and often struggle with basic dialogue intelligibility. Two physically separated speakers also have an inherent advantage over a compact soundbar trying to create stereo width from beneath the screen.

Does It Support Dolby Atmos?

This is where the reporting has become muddled.

The Google TV Streamer unquestionably supports Dolby Atmos. Google lists Dolby Atmos among its supported audio formats and promotes the device as capable of delivering immersive 3D sound when connected to compatible audio equipment.

Google also says two Home Speakers can create immersive Spatial Audio.

What Google does not currently say is that the Home Speaker pair constitutes an officially supported Dolby Atmos playback system.

Google’s setup documentation repeatedly uses the terms “Spatial Audio,” “spatial surround sound,” and “simulates surround sound.” It does not state that the speakers decode Dolby Atmos, identify them as a Dolby Atmos system, or describe how an Atmos soundtrack is rendered through the pair.

Some reports have combined the Google TV Streamer’s confirmed Atmos support with the speakers’ confirmed Spatial Audio feature and concluded that the complete pairing supports Dolby Atmos. That conclusion may eventually prove correct. The streamer could decode an Atmos soundtrack and render it through Google’s virtual spatial processing.

But Google has not documented that signal path clearly enough to present it as being true.

The accurate description is that the Google TV Streamer supports Dolby Atmos, while two paired Google Home Speakers reproduce compatible spatial content through Google’s Spatial Audio processing. Until Google explicitly confirms Dolby Atmos rendering through the speakers, calling the combination a Dolby Atmos system goes beyond the available documentation.

A logo on one box and spatial processing in two others do not automatically produce a certified Atmos system, regardless of how enthusiastically the dots are connected.

How Apple Handles the Same Question

Apple is considerably more explicit.

Apple states that one full-size HomePod or a stereo pair connected to an Apple TV 4K can automatically reproduce Dolby Atmos, Dolby Digital 7.1, and Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks. The full-size HomePod’s specifications also list Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos for music and video.

HomePod mini can still be used alone or as a stereo pair for Apple TV audio, but it does not reproduce Dolby Atmos or Dolby surround formats. Those soundtracks are rendered through the smaller speakers in mono or stereo.

Apple also supports HDMI ARC and eARC through Apple TV 4K models from the second generation onward. That allows compatible televisions to send audio from game consoles, disc players, cable boxes, and internal TV apps through the Apple TV and onward to the HomePod system.

Google has not documented an equivalent television-audio return feature for its Home Speaker pairing. The confirmed Google configuration handles audio from the Google TV Streamer. There is currently no official indication that a PlayStation, Blu-ray player, or television tuner can route its sound through the speakers.

That is an important practical difference.

Did tvOS 26 Expand Apple’s Atmos Support?

Not significantly.

tvOS 26 allows any AirPlay-enabled speaker to be selected as the Apple TV’s default audio output. However, that does not turn every AirPlay speaker into a Dolby Atmos home-theater system. When third-party AirPlay speakers are selected, Apple notes that system alerts and game sounds continue to play through the television rather than the wireless speakers.

Apple’s full Dolby Atmos home-theater implementation remains limited to one or two full-size HomePods.

tvOS 18.5 previously added Wireless Audio Sync calibration for Dolby Atmos playback over AirPlay or Bluetooth. That feature corrects timing between picture and wireless audio; it does not add Atmos reproduction to speakers that lack it.

As of July 15, 2026, tvOS 26.5 is the latest public release. Apple describes it as a performance and stability update, while tvOS 26.4 corrected an audio issue when moving between Atmos and stereo programming. Neither update added rear HomePods, four-speaker configurations, Atmos support for HomePod mini, or Dolby Atmos playback through generic AirPlay speakers.

Better Than a Soundbar?

Google’s system has several appealing qualities. It is inexpensive, wireless, compact, and provides genuine stereo separation. The speakers also remain useful as Gemini assistants, Matter hubs, Thread devices, and components in a Google Cast multiroom system.

The limitations are equally obvious.

There is no dedicated center channel, subwoofer, rear channel, or height driver. Google has not published amplifier output, frequency response, or maximum volume specifications. Each speaker relies on one small full-range driver, and the surround presentation is created through processing rather than discrete speakers around the room.

A system such as the Klipsch The Sevens II costs considerably more but offers larger drivers, deeper bass, HDMI eARC, multiple physical inputs, a subwoofer output, and more convincing performance with both music and movies. A Dolby Atmos soundbar can also provide dedicated height processing and broader television connectivity.

Google’s system is not designed to replace either of those options. It is an affordable alternative to weak television speakers for people already invested in Google TV and Google Home.

That is still a worthwhile improvement when you consider the price.

The Bottom Line

Pairing two Google Home Speakers with Google TV Streamer gives Google something it should have delivered years ago: a simple and relatively inexpensive wireless television-audio system that connects its streaming, smart-home, and voice-assistant platforms.

The system should create a wider and more immersive presentation than most built-in television speakers, and $300 for the streamer and stereo pair is not unreasonable.

It should not yet be described as a confirmed Dolby Atmos speaker system.

Apple clearly states that the full-size HomePod and Apple TV 4K combination reproduces Dolby Atmos. Google currently says its two-speaker pairing provides Spatial Audio that simulates surround sound. Those statements are not interchangeable.

Google has finally found its way into the living room. It still needs to explain exactly what kind of soundtrack followed it through the door.

Where to buy:

Related Reading:

Forward-looking: Thirty years after Sega partnered with Nvidia to bring its arcade fighting game Virtua Fighter to PCs running on the Nvidia NV1 multimedia card, the two companies have once again teamed up to launch the franchise’s next title, Virtua Fighter Crossroads, on laptops and desktops powered by the Arm-based Nvidia RTX Spark. The collaboration will also extend to other upcoming Sega titles, the companies confirmed.

According to Nvidia’s press release, the new Sega games will support its latest upscaling and rendering technologies, including ray tracing and DLSS. The company added that its latest AI tools will also be supported by the upcoming titles, hinting at integration with its AI-powered neural rendering technologies, such as Reflex and G-Assist.

– VIRTUA FIGHTER CROSSROADS (@VFCROSSROADS) July 15, 2026

Neither Nvidia nor Sega revealed the names of the other games coming to RTX Spark, but online speculation suggests that several upcoming Sega titles, including Creative Assembly’s Alien: Isolation 2 and Total War: Warhammer 40,000, as well as the next installments in the Yakuza and Persona franchises, could receive support.

The announcements were made earlier today by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang at an event in Tokyo celebrating the 30-year partnership between Sega and Nvidia. The gathering featured a reunion between Huang and former Sega president Shoichiro Irimajiri and was attended by Sega’s current CEO Haruki Satomi, COO Shuji Utsumi, and game designer Yu Suzuki.

Speaking at the event, Huang reminisced about how Irimajiri helped save Nvidia from bankruptcy in the 1990s by providing a $5 million cash infusion just as the company was running out of funding. Huang later admitted that Sega’s timely investment was the only thing that kept Nvidia afloat and that Irimajiri’s “understanding and generosity” saved the company from insolvency.

Sega had previously tapped Nvidia to develop a custom GPU for its Dreamcast console, but eventually canceled the order and used NEC’s PowerVR GPU instead, citing Nvidia’s outdated technology. Irimajiri still paid Nvidia the $5 million contract fee, but structured the payment as an equity investment, allowing Nvidia to develop the commercially successful Riva 128 and GeForce 256 gaming GPUs.

When Nvidia went public in 1999, Sega sold its shares for $15 million, tripling its original $5 million investment. While that may have seemed like a reasonable decision at the time, Nvidia’s market capitalization now sits at around $5 trillion, meaning Sega’s stake would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars had the company held onto its shares.

Apple has now announced who can advertise on Apple Maps, barring entire business categories while still giving itself the right to final say over any advertisements on the platform.

On Tuesday, Apple updated its advertising guidelines. This was particularly noteworthy as it outlines the policies that advertisers will be expected to follow when advertising on Apple Maps.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Apple’s policies are generally more restrictive than Google’s across some key categories. This has typically been the case for content moderation between the two services.

For instance, Apple Maps has placed strict prohibitions on certain advertising categories outright. Banned categories include bail bonding services and cryptocurrency ATMs.

It also prohibits any home services. This would include plumbers, electricians, HVAC, roofing, and more; Apple does not explain the rationale for excluding these categories.

Google generally allows these categories to advertise, subject to local law and other advertising policies.

And while Apple hasn’t outright banned medical services, it does note that any such ad “will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Google will generally allow medical ads, assuming they are compliant with local laws.

Apple has also fully banned political advertising, though this is not exclusive to Apple Maps. Google allows political advertising on Google Maps and other categories.

Apple Maps ads will be expected to comply with the whole of Apple advertising policy. This means that ads must be presented clearly and advertisers cannot send users to unrelated pages or use misleading claims.

Generally, Apple reserves broader discretion to reject ads, even if they’re not directly in violation of a rule. Google, on the other hand, tends to allow most things that don’t violate any of its listed criteria.

Coming to a Maps app near you

Apple Maps ads are only now beginning to roll out after years of speculation. Initially, it was believed that the tech giant was weighing the pros and cons of integrated ads in 2022.

Reports later suggested the advertisements would surface in 2023. However, the feature failed to materialize in 2023, 2024, or 2025.

Speculation resumed in late 2025, with reports once again hinting to a 2026 launch. Apple officially confirmed those plans in March 2026 with the launch of Apple Business, announcing that advertising would begin rolling out to Apple Maps during Summer 2026.

President Donald Trump restarted the Iran conflict with days of missile strikes, and US intelligence officials now estimate the total military cost of the war for the Pentagon could exceed $100 billion, according to two people directly familiar with the matter.

The officials were tracking the total cost of Operation Epic Fury to be in the $50 to $100 billion range at the end of May, dovetailing with confidential congressional estimates putting the costs to date at around $80 billion.

The Trump administration has not disclosed its cost estimates for the Iran war. In June the White House made a request for $88 billion to cover some of the costs of the war, but even that is an undercounting, the people say.

Part of the reason why a final cost is not available is that the Pentagon is still deciding whether to replace all the aircraft destroyed or damaged beyond repair during the conflict, the people say.

If the Pentagon decides not to replace certain aircraft, defense officials have told lawmakers, they will not request money for it—and therefore not factor that into the total cost of the war, the people say.

Presented with a detailed breakdown of this reporting, a War Department official told Inner Loop: “We have nothing further to announce at the moment.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a report on May 20 compiled using only publicly available reporting that the US had lost at least 17 manned aircraft and 25 drones since the start of the conflict.

The CRS report also showed the US had been losing an increasing number of drones, which are not cheap to replace. Among the 25 drones lost was an MQ-4C Triton, a high-altitude Navy surveillance aircraft that costs more than $600 million per airframe.

The cost of repairing US bases in the region, some of which sustained heavy damage from Iran firing retaliatory missiles and one-way attack drones in response to US strikes, will also be high.

Defense officials have told lawmakers behind closed doors they have not accounted for the costs of repair—and may never do so—if the US ultimately decides to shutter those bases because they are too vulnerable to Iranian attacks, the officials say.

Iran has been able to repeatedly hit several key bases in the Middle East in retaliatory strikes, including the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet at Naval Support Activity, Bahrain, which the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged.

The only actual cost provided publicly by a top defense official has been from then acting Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst, who testified in an oversight hearing in May that the cost of the war had risen to roughly $29 billion.

On Tuesday, at his nomination hearing to permanently become comptroller, Hurst declined to provide an updated figure but said the $29 billion was mainly munitions and the costs like fuel associated with having two US aircraft carriers steaming around the Middle East.

Operation “Gold Eagle” Has Arrived

The Trump administration on Tuesday launched a clearinghouse that will try to identify and patch any software vulnerabilities before malicious actors can hack them with the most powerful AI models.

An administration official told Inner Loop the clearinghouse, named “Gold Eagle,” will be run by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which will itself use AI models that are not publicly available, to identify vulnerabilities.

It marks the first major implementation of Trump’s June 2 executive order that aims to create a framework to oversee the rapidly growing threat of advanced AI models.