HiFi Rose has officially launched the RW800 ROSE AIR Lite, a compact streaming expansion module designed to bring newer network audio features to existing Hi-Fi systems without forcing owners to replace the hardware they already own.

That sounds simple enough. It is not.

The RW800 is both a standalone network streamer and an expansion module for compatible HiFi Rose components. In standalone mode, it can connect to an amplifier, active loudspeakers, or an external DAC. In expansion mode, it connects to select HiFi Rose products and adds modern streaming support that some owners have been asking about for a long time.

HiFi Rose announced the RW800 through its official community site on July 7, confirming that pre-orders are available through authorized dealers and that a launch promotion for existing HiFi Rose customers runs through September 30, 2026. Regional pricing and promotion details will depend on local dealers, so U.S. buyers should confirm availability and final pricing with an authorized HiFi Rose retailer.

Related Reviews:

Why the RW800 Matters

HiFi Rose has built its reputation on large touchscreen streamers, attractive industrial design, and a software platform that combines music, video, internet radio, local playback, CD ripping, and streaming services. The problem is that streaming services do not stand still. TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, Spotify Connect, AirPlay 2, Google Cast, and Roon Ready support are no longer fringe features. For many listeners, they are the way they actually use a streamer.

That has created tension inside the Rose ecosystem.

HiFi Rose owners have been asking about TIDAL Connect and broader Connect-style support for years. In April, a HiFi Rose representative said the company encountered technical difficulties trying to add TIDAL Connect to existing hardware and developed the RW800 to support TIDAL Connect and other functions that could not be added through firmware updates alone.

That makes the RW800 more than another small streamer. It is HiFi Rose’s answer to a real platform problem.

For current Rose owners, the RW800 may be the most practical way to add features that competing streamers already include natively. That is both useful and slightly awkward. When someone spends serious money on a network player, they expect the software side to age gracefully. The RW800 suggests that HiFi Rose knows some customers need a bridge to get there.

What the RW800 Does

The RW800 supports TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, Spotify Connect, AirPlay 2, Google Cast, Roon Ready, Bluetooth 5.2, dual-band Wi-Fi, Ethernet, and USB audio. HiFi Rose also lists high-resolution playback support up to PCM 32-bit/384kHz and DSD128.

The key feature is its two-mode design.

In Expansion Mode, the RW800 works with compatible HiFi Rose components, adding newer streaming capabilities to the existing Rose system. HiFi Rose has specifically discussed compatibility with products including the RS130, RS150, RS451, RS151, and RS201. Dealer materials also list the RS250A among compatible products.

In Standalone Mode, the RW800 acts as a compact network streamer for non-Rose systems. That means it can be used with an integrated amplifier, powered speakers, or an external DAC. For someone with an older but still excellent audio system, that may be the cleaner use case: keep the amplifier and speakers, add the streaming layer, and avoid buying a larger touchscreen streamer just to access modern services.

RW800 Core Features

The RW800 is small enough to hide in a rack or place on a desktop, but the feature set is broader than the footprint suggests.

• Product type: Streaming expansion module and standalone network streamer
• Operating modes: Expansion Mode for compatible HiFi Rose components and Standalone Mode for other audio systems
• Streaming support: TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, Spotify Connect, AirPlay 2, Google Cast, Roon Ready, DLNA/UPnP, and Bluetooth
• Playback support: PCM up to 32-bit/384kHz and DSD128
• Wireless and network connectivity: Bluetooth 5.2, dual-band Wi-Fi, and Ethernet
• Digital connectivity: Optical input and optical output, with USB audio used for Rose system integration
• Analog output: Stereo RCA output for connection to an amplifier or powered speakers
• Control: ROSE AIR app for iOS and Android

Who Is It For?

The RW800 makes the most sense for three groups of listeners.

The first group is existing HiFi Rose owners who like their hardware but want newer app-based streaming support. If you own a Rose streamer and have been waiting for TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, Spotify Connect, AirPlay 2, or Google Cast support to become easier to use, the RW800 is aimed directly at you.

The second group is anyone with an older amplifier, active loudspeakers, or external DAC who wants a compact streaming front end without buying a full-size network player. In that context, the RW800 is less of a Rose accessory and more of a small streamer that happens to come from a brand known for premium network audio products.

The third group is the listener who wants Roon Ready, Connect-style streaming, and Bluetooth in a small box but does not need HDMI ARC, a large touchscreen, phono input, room correction, or preamp features.

That last point matters because the RW800 is not trying to be a WiiM Ultra, Bluesound NODE, Cambridge Audio CXN100, or Eversolo DMP-A6. It is more focused than that. Whether that focus is a strength or a limitation will depend on the system.

What Makes It Unique

Most affordable streamers are designed as standalone boxes. The WiiM Ultra, Bluesound NODE, Cambridge Audio MXN10, Volumio Primo V3, and Eversolo DMP-A6 all expect to be the streamer in the system.

The RW800 is different because it also works as an ecosystem extension. It can serve as a compact standalone streamer, but its more unusual role is as an add-on module for existing HiFi Rose owners. That is not common, and it gives the RW800 a very specific reason to exist.

There is a fair criticism here. Should owners of expensive streamers need an external module for features like TIDAL Connect and Spotify Connect? Probably not. But there is also a practical answer: if the main Rose hardware still performs well and the missing features cannot be added cleanly through software, a compact add-on is better than telling customers to replace an entire component..

Competitors?

The WiiM Ultra is the obvious value rival for anyone starting from scratch. It offers a touchscreen, broad streaming support, HDMI ARC, phono input, subwoofer output, room correction, and preamp features at a very aggressive price. If you do not need Rose integration, the WiiM Ultra remains one of the hardest products in the category to ignore.

The Bluesound NODE is the more established multiroom alternative. BluOS remains one of the strongest streaming platforms in consumer audio, and the current NODE is a better fit for users who want HDMI eARC, app maturity, broad service support, and a larger ecosystem of wireless speakers and components. eCoustics recently reviewed the Bluesound NODE as a $750 streamer competing directly against WiiM and Cambridge.

The Volumio Primo V3 is another relevant comparison because it supports TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, Spotify, Roon Ready operation, and Volumio Premium in a more conventional standalone streamer. eCoustics covered the Primo V3 as a streamer focused heavily on software flexibility and app-based control.

The Ferrum BROEN sits higher up the food chain as a network streaming transport for external DAC users. It is powered by Volumio and supports Spotify Connect, TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, AirPlay via Shairport Sync, UPnP/DLNA, Bluetooth playback, USB storage, NAS playback, and CD playback and ripping. It is not really the same buyer as the RW800, but it belongs in the broader conversation about external streaming bridges and transports.

The Eversolo DMP-A6 Gen 2 and related Eversolo models are the larger-screen alternatives for buyers who want a more complete standalone component with local storage options, touchscreen operation, and a fuller hardware interface. The RW800 is smaller and more focused. Eversolo is more of a full-featured front end.

The Bottom Line

Streaming compatibility now matters as much as the DAC, chassis, power supply, and display. For many listeners, the best streamer is not the one with the most impressive spec sheet. It is the one that works cleanly with the services they already use.

The RW800 gives HiFi Rose owners a path to newer streaming features without replacing their existing hardware, and it gives non-Rose users a compact way to add modern network playback to an older system. It also raises an uncomfortable but necessary question about how long premium streamers should remain current in a software-driven audio world.

HiFi Rose deserves credit for offering a solution. Whether the RW800 feels like a clever upgrade or a workaround will depend on the system, the owner, and how much patience they have left for streamer software drama. In 2026, that patience is not exactly in surplus.

For more information: hifirose.com/product/rw800

Related Reading:

from the lego-lawyering dept

One thing that we’ve heard for many years in covering a variety of ridiculous civil and criminal court cases is the belief that when a crazy case is filed, the person accused of wrongdoing should “just walk into court and tell the judge what really happened.” While that might feel right, it’s really not how these things work. There is a procedure, and having an actual lawyer who understands how things work is incredibly valuable.

When we first wrote about “Reckless” Ben Schneider and his valiant attempt to help Bryan Mansell get back the Lego sets (and/or money) he was owed from the company Bricks & Minifigs, we mentioned that almost everyone in the dispute should have talked to lawyers earlier in the process than they did. We had a lot of people get mad at us for making that claim, but I stand by it. Especially after Schneider has dropped Part 3 (after a federal court fixed the extremely problematic injunction from a state court that had blocked him from releasing it originally), and it again shows why Schneider really needs to hire a lawyer.

As lots of people are rightly noting, the video itself shows a ton of pretty sketchy behavior by Bricks & Minifigs and the cops — police walking a witness through how to invent charges while mocking Schneider, and Bricks & Minifigs caught telling wildly different stories depending on who was listening. And then, right on schedule, after the video came out Bricks & Minifigs followed it up with a new blog post on Friday that somehow makes things worse.

Schneider certainly knows how to make pretty viral video content, but representing himself in court seems particularly stupid, especially as he’s doing it here in a criminal case. He is right that the deck is stacked against him and that the prosecutors and the judge don’t seem to be listening to him or taking his claims seriously, but that’s in large part because he’s bumbling into court without a lawyer, and when he’s being asked fundamental procedural questions is telling the judge “have you looked at the evidence we submitted?”

Again, this might feel like the right way to handle a case where you feel you’re being railroaded, but procedurally, the court isn’t supposed to be looking at the evidence at this stage of the case, so Schneider making out like the court is treating him unfairly just misses the point that basically any lawyer could have told him regarding how cases like this proceed.

That’s not to defend the prosecutors, the police, or Bricks & Minifigs. While the video is (again) only showing Schneider’s side of the story, there are a whole bunch of things in the video that are incredibly damning to all three.

Let’s go through a few key points: First up: what the cops told Schneider about the charges against him, and what they were actually hiding.

Schneider plays some audio from one of the criminal cases against him (it’s a little unclear which one, since he suggests it’s the case in American Fork, but a screenshot he shows briefly suggests it may be the other case in Provo), where he says that the prosecutor and the court won’t even share what he’s being charged with, though the video clips don’t show that. Rather they show prosecutors trying to get out of providing body cam footage in discovery to Schneider, claiming that they’re upset he’ll make video commentary out of it. Discovery of evidence is not the same as knowing what the charges are, even if the evidence is related to the charges.

Even so, the claim is bullshit. The fact that Schneider might create public commentary with the videos is no excuse for not providing discovery. If that’s the concern, prosecutors can seek to have a protective order put over how the discovery materials are used, and if Schneider violates that order, then he could face contempt charges. Simply denying discovery is ridiculous.

But it’s the second case, out of Provo, where the bodycam footage stops looking like sloppy policing and starts looking like something much more problematic. Schneider was able to obtain bodycam footage from the police who were handling the charges against him based on statements from Bricks & Minifigs’ CEO Ammon McNeff. Again, we’re only seeing the evidence as selected and edited by Schneider, but it’s difficult to see how there’s anything else that would exonerate how the Provo police acted here.

They literally have one police officer talking to McNeff (repeatedly), talking about how McNeff’s original claim of extortion isn’t supported by the evidence but offering to help him find some other charges, and then asking McNeff to confirm specific elements to turn it into commercial obstruction. The police officer’s quote here is deeply problematic:

“We agree that there really was no extortion code that would fit your situation, however, you know, at the end of the day, we do want to help you guys so you’re not having to deal with this fool… [sigh]… all his issues. We did find that there was another code that fit and it’s called aggravated commercial obstruction….”

Having the police call Schneider a “fool” and saying they want to help find charges that will stick is not great. They then walk McNeff through what they need him to say/do to get such charges, including claiming that he asked Schneider to leave the Bricks & Minifigs premises multiple times and Schneider refused. Schneider shows his own video recordings (and security footage) that appears to directly contradict this — specifically showing that when asked to leave they did so.

There is one point where McNeff asks them to leave but then keeps talking to them anyway, so that almost certainly doesn’t count as a legitimate request to leave. And none of the footage Schneider shares matches even remotely what McNeff told the police. There is footage of Schneider (stupidly) saying “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” which is not fatal to Schneider’s argument, but can certainly be read as a threat. In all these videos, that’s the one point that isn’t great for Schneider, though in the full context it’s pretty clearly a threat to release more videos and publicly shame Bricks & Minifigs. Still, that line hurts Schneider’s argument a bit.

McNeff also tells the police that Schneider threatened to burn the offices down, even though in their own civil lawsuit against him they admit that various threats have not come from Schneider directly but from some of his fans online. If Schneider had directly threatened them, you’d think they would have included that in the civil complaint. While most of the video evidence has only been selectively released, at this point not a single bit of evidence shows Schneider actually threatening any sort of violence towards Bricks & Minifigs (indeed, it seems that his whole schtick is to sort of do the dopey, hapless, inquisitor thing).

Based on the current evidence, it sure looks like McNeff just lied to the cops, and the cops not only took his side, but helped nudge McNeff about what he should say or do to give them enough to charge Schneider.

Not great!

Even worse, when the same cop figures out what they can charge them with, the body cam footage shows her laughing with glee. You kinda have to watch the clip directly (starting at 16:15) where the cop gets kinda gleeful that McNeff told her enough to charge Schneider with a second degree felony (Schneider falsely calls it a “secondary” felony). This is actually two separate clips from Schneider’s video, though it sounds like they’re directly connected to one another:

Cop: However, the tricky thing is is that we have to prove that this individual either entered or remains unlawfully on the premise. When he came to the property, did you have to ask him more than once to leave?

McNeff: Yes.

Cop: Okay.

McNeff: You know, ‘we’re not leaving until we we get it.’ …

[other video interspersed before cutting back to this exchange]

McNeff (trying to reconstruct the scene for the cop): ‘Guys, at this point, I’ve asked you to leave. Please leave.’ ‘Well, we we you know, like you have to listen to us. You have to pay us this money.’ ‘No, guys, you need to leave and you’re not leaving.’ Like, but I asked multiple times. They did not leave.

Cop: Looks like that might be a second degree felony. [laughs joyfully] He’s facing felony charges. It is a felony…

That is all… pretty damning. Later the same cop mocks Schneider’s first video: “I’m really curious if this fool makes any money doing this YouTube stuff?” Even later, she says to McNeff “well, I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you. Hopefully no more issues” and “there’s so many other things that this guy could be talking about, right?” Just completely supporting McNeff and dismissing Schneider’s side entirely.

Though I will note that Schneider also has a misunderstanding that “reporting a crime” (as he tries to do with McNeff) is “opening a case.” While police can investigate claims of a crime, until a prosecutor charges it, there is no actual “case.”

But it does seem overwhelmingly clear, from what’s presented in this video at least, that the police immediately believed and sided with McNeff and dismissed/ignored everything Schneider presents in response… to the point that they sent a subpoena to Google seeking a bunch of Schneider’s emails, communications, and other documents. There’s a suggestion in the video that McNeff got Schneider to email him just to get his email for the sake of the subpoena, though it seems clear that McNeff had other means of getting Schneider’s email address. Schneider points out that he emailed via the website contact form and had received a reply from someone at Bricks & Minifigs. And while McNeff acts like he’s never heard of that email address and it has nothing to do with him, that’s clearly bullshit, and he could easily talk to whatever employee manages that account to get Schneider’s email address.

Set the criminal case aside for a second, because there’s a parallel thread here that’s just as bad for the company: McNeff’s own claims about the inventory list don’t survive contact with reality. McNeff tells Schneider that he’ll happily share the inventory they did of the store they took over if he sends an email to the one specific address, and says he told Mansell the same thing. However, when Schneider emails that address and follows up, he receives this reply:

If you can’t read that, it says:

Mr. Schneider,

• BAM Franchising, Inc. will not participate in any form of communication that appears designed for public provocation, harassment, or manipulation of facts for the purpose of media content.
• Attempts to obtain privileged or confidential information through misrepresentation or the creation of fraudulent documents may constitute criminal misconduct, and we reserve all rights to refer such behavior to appropriate legal authorities.

Should you believe you are entitled to any specific information under applicable law, we suggest that you pursue such requests through formal and lawful legal procedures.

This will serve as our final response to your inquiry unless we are contacted by duly retained legal counsel representing a party of standing.

That shows pretty clearly that McNeff was full of shit when he said he’d be happy to email Schneider a copy of the inventory. And, sure, you can say that between Schneider visiting them and the time this email was sent they decided that they didn’t like how they were going to be portrayed, but there’s a pattern here. In the video Schneider releases, he shows McNeff saying “I think we have sent it to Bryan” in reference to the inventory list, and later says that if Schneider and Mansell get on an email thread together he’ll send it to both of them.

They also show McNeff going on TV news interviews claiming that they had told Mansell and Mansell’s lawyer that they were happy to work on going through the inventory list, but that Mansell’s lawyer stopped responding. McNeff said: “we’ve tried to share those with Mr. Mansell in hopes that he can see that we were not attempting — in any shape or form — to withhold anything. Those were then offered to him, and the initial offer was rejected.”

Except that Mansell has the receipts in the form of the email thread between his lawyer and Bricks & Minifigs, which seems to show pretty clearly a very different story. Even as we only see snippets of the emails, it’s hard to square this with what McNeff keeps claiming. The emails show Mansell’s lawyer asking multiple times how to get the money owed or the sets back and finally getting a stiff arm email saying that the two guys who Bricks & Minifigs handed the store to, “Brandon Best and Joshua Johnson, have no legal obligation to return any of the LEGO product.”

And then, even more damning is the closing of the email, saying “We consider this matter closed and will not be returning any LEGO products to you.”

That, uh, does not seem like a company that claims that it has no problem trying to work with Mansell to resolve this issue. Last week we mocked Bricks & Minifigs for having their crisis comms person send us an email about how the company was so eager to help make Mansell whole. That already seemed ridiculous since they’re suing Mansell for $1.3 million claiming RICO. But also, that was before we’d seen this email where the company basically says “shove it.”

Anyway, even as this is just coming from Schneider’s side, it’s hard to see how there’s any additional info that would acceptably square the claims made by McNeff with what’s been presented. There’s now plenty of discussion about how Schneider likely has civil claims he could bring against McNeff. Arguably he could also claim that the police in both American Fork and Provo violated his rights, but that’s likely an extreme longshot (not because the cops are in the right, but because it’s next to impossible to sue the cops for violating your rights).

Either way, we now know that Schneider has legal representation for the civil case, and hopefully that means he can also secure legal representation for the criminal case as well, because that would clearly be helpful. Yes, all of this is tremendous content, but your strategy in court when facing felony charges and your strategy for making viral content can (and should) be somewhat different.

Honestly, given how much attention this has gotten, and the legal help that has started to step up, there’s a decent chance that the criminal cases will go away, but that’s very much not the norm. Planning to go viral is not a strategy any lawyer would recommend for fighting criminal charges.

Anyway, while Schneider’s legal troubles play out, it’s worth remembering that Bricks & Minifigs certainly was not blindsided by Schneider’s Part III. They knew it was coming and that it was blocked by the broader injunction they had obtained in court. They knew that they had negotiated a pared back injunction, which meant Part III would be released soon. They basically had weeks to prepare a PR response to all the damning stuff that video was going to show.

And this is what they came up with.

The company released yet another tone deaf blog post on Friday, which talks about all the “changes” they’re making to respond to some of the criticism they’re getting. Half of them basically read as admissions of how badly run the company is. They admit that they’re going to work more closely with franchises (apparently they’ve recently jacked up franchise fees) and have put in place a “standardized inventory and trade system” effectively admitting that they had nothing before.

There are also some comments on the lawsuit that look written by the world’s worst crisis comms team. I mean, this is embarrassing:

Some have asked why Bricks & Minifigs hasn’t simply dropped the pending litigation connected to this matter. The answer is that accountability and integrity must run both ways. We remain open to a mediated, amicable resolution, and we don’t view litigation as the preferred path. We’re also not willing to submit to manipulation, threats and unsupported accusations.

That… doesn’t answer the question. And sure, fine, accountability and integrity should run both ways, but you’re the one out there claiming that you’re trying to make Mansell whole… while telling him you won’t give him any of his stuff back and then suing him for $1.3 million.

The blog post also suggests they have to keep the lawsuit going because Schneider’s conduct “has crossed the line from fair criticism into harassment, misrepresentation, and targeted harm.” But that’s Schneider, not Mansell. It’s also laughable given the footage that’s been shown so far.

And of course they try to avoid the fact that all the presented evidence makes them look terrible with this favorite line:

We will not try this matter on social media, and we will not use this statement to relitigate every disputed detail. Those issues belong in mediation and, if necessary, the legal process.

Again, that makes sense in certain contexts, but here where you’ve been running your mouth off constantly on TV show after TV show with claims that directly contradict what corporate actions and emails have said, it does the opposite of building credibility.

At basically every turn where Bricks & Minifigs could have made the situation better, they’ve dug in and made it worse. It seems like a bad strategy. So bad it’s even worse than going to court and trying to defend yourself from criminal charges without a lawyer.

Filed Under: american fork, ammon mcneff, ben schneider, lawyering, provo, provo pd, utah

Companies: bricks & minifigs, bricks and minifigs

Everyone expects instant access to the internet, and that’s partly because Wi-Fi standards have advanced so far in the last few years. Wi-Fi 8 is up next, but it’s a little different from its predecessors. No speed bump has been deemed necessary this time around, but what you can expect is increased reliability, seamless hand-offs between different devices and routers, and lower latency.

With Wi-Fi woes on the decline, many folks are still making do with Wi-Fi 6, though most homes will have Wi-Fi 6E or Wi-Fi 7 devices in them by now. If you’re in the market to upgrade, all the best routers or mesh systems I recommend now support Wi-Fi 7. You don’t need to consider Wi-Fi 8 for quite a while yet (the standard hasn’t even been finalized), but we can still take a peek at what Wi-Fi 8 has in store to see what’s coming.

What Is Wi-Fi 8?

The eighth generation of Wi-Fi represents a change in focus. While previous incarnations of the Wi-Fi standard have promised higher connection speeds, Wi-Fi 8 seems to be more about improving the basics: reliability, stability, and lower latency. Wi-Fi 8 also promises seamless roaming, keeping devices connected as you move and cutting down on dropped connections and dead zones.

Photograph: Simon Hill

For those keeping score at home, Wi-Fi 8 is IEEE 802.11bn using the old naming convention, where Wi-Fi 7 was IEEE 802.11be and Wi-Fi 6 was IEEE 802.11ax. In case you’re wondering, the IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the folks responsible for these new standards (and yes, they love acronyms). As with all the previous standards, Wi-Fi 8 will be backward compatible, meaning if you buy a Wi-Fi 8 router, it’ll still function just fine with devices on older standards. But to take advantage of the new features and performance enhancements it promises, you’ll also need to upgrade your devices. That means buying new routers and mesh systems, yes, but also new smartphones, laptops, TVs, and other gadgets.

What Benefits Does Wi-Fi 8 Bring?

There’s a pleasing list of improvements we can expect from Wi-Fi 8, but the headline is Ultra High Reliability (UHR). Wi-Fi 7 was focused on Extremely High Throughput (EHT), but now that speeds are generally great, the focus has shifted to ensuring connections are more reliable. This isn’t a complete list, but here are a few of the features that will enable UHR:

• Multi-Access Point Coordination (MAPC): There’s a bundle of features designed to help access points cooperate instead of interfering with each other. This should improve performance, extend coverage, and reduce power requirements.
• Seamless Roaming Domain (SRD): Many Wi-Fi drops, which may translate as videos buffering or calls dropping out, are caused by your device switching its connection from one access point to another. SRD is designed to minimize the latency and packet loss that occurs during handoffs.
• Low Latency Indication (LLI): This allows devices to share their latency requirements, so a gaming stream (where latency is crucial) can cut in line and take priority. Combined with things like TXOP Preemption and High Priority EDCA, we can expect much better prioritization and more effective Quality of Service (QoS) functionality, so you can ensure the kids streaming Netflix doesn’t interrupt your work video call.
• In-Device Coexistence (IDC): While it’s not talked about much, it’s disturbingly common for other connectivity features like Bluetooth, Thread, or Zigbee to impact Wi-Fi performance in devices like smartphones. This feature reduces interference between the different radios and helps them coordinate.
• Extended Long Range (ELR): This feature allows devices to connect and stay connected more reliably at a distance without you having to add more access points. Combined with Distributed-Tone Resource Unit (DRU), which spreads a device’s signal across a wider band, your Wi-Fi signal should be more reliable at the extremities of your home.

How Does Wi-Fi 8 Compare to Wi-Fi 7?

Photograph: Simon Hill

With the same theoretical maximum speed of 46 Gbps and Wi-Fi on the same three bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) with a maximum 320-MHz channel width, Wi-Fi 8 may not feel like a substantial improvement over Wi-Fi 7 for most folks.

Some of the features I mention in the benefits of Wi-Fi 8 section above could bring tangible improvements, especially for anyone living in a high-interference area like an apartment building in a city, but just how much better reliability will be remains to be seen. Chances are, if Wi-Fi 7 is working well for you now, Wi-Fi 8 will be a tough sell.

When Does Wi-Fi 8 Arrive?

It usually takes four or five years for a new Wi-Fi standard to completely roll out. That might sound like a long time, but it requires time for chip, router, and device manufacturers to implement them in new products. Since the Wi-Fi Alliance certification for Wi-Fi 7 was officially released in January 2024, we can reasonably expect Wi-Fi 8 certification some time in 2028. But chip makers are already producing Wi-Fi 8 chipsets, and router manufacturers like TP-Link have already announced Wi-Fi 8 routers and mesh systems, with the first release slated for before the end of 2026.

The same thing happened with Wi-Fi 7, and this is because the IEEE already has a working draft that allows manufacturers to take an educated guess about what certification will require. Early adopters of Wi-Fi 8 systems can expect to pay a premium, as always, and the benefits probably won’t be as compelling as the jump from Wi-Fi 6 to Wi-Fi 7. That’s why I recommend to wait for the official certification and maybe even longer for prices to come down.

For anyone in the US, the FCC’s foreign-made router ban is another complication that’s likely to limit your options.

Too Fast: Google recently announced an accelerated Chrome release schedule. Now, another major player in the browser market, Mozilla, is doing the same. The company plans to drop two updates for its open-source browser every month across both desktop and Android devices. The new roadmap is expected to begin in September 2026, although Mozilla could change course if unexpected issues arise.

Mozilla Director Sylvestre Ledru confirmed that Firefox will soon adopt a faster release cadence, but said the accelerated release schedule should be considered an “experiment” for now. The final monthly release will be Firefox 154, which is currently scheduled for August 18. After that, Firefox 155 will arrive on September 1 instead of two weeks later. As a result, Mozilla has completely overhauled the Firefox Release Calendar to accommodate the new bi-weekly schedule.

Ledru said the faster release cadence will allow Mozilla developers to ship more “work” on the browser more frequently. Meanwhile, the release process itself should become more predictable, with fewer obstacles affecting rollout plans. Developers will not need to work twice as fast, however, as half-baked features will still (hopefully) receive the additional attention they need.

Ledru’s team will monitor this major change to the Firefox release schedule, adjusting the new approach when necessary. Google announced a new bi-weekly release schedule for Chrome in March, explaining that the change would ultimately benefit all parties by improving the security, reliability, and performance of the web platform.

Last month, Microsoft announced that the Edge browser would adopt the same bi-weekly release cadence as Chrome. This was a much easier decision to make, considering that Edge is essentially a proprietary shell built on top of the Chromium project. Meanwhile, Mozilla continues to use and develop its Gecko layout engine despite Chromium’s growing popularity among browser makers.

Over the past decade, Mozilla has been forced to follow Chrome’s design decisions time and time again. Some of those changes were not exactly popular among Firefox enthusiasts, starting with the more restrictive WebExtensions model for browser add-ons.

Judging by the early reactions to Ledru’s message, the accelerated release cadence could prove to be controversial as well. Firefox users are once again accusing Mozilla of copying Google’s every move, even as the Alphabet-owned company continues to make one questionable decision after another. Other users have pointed out that Firefox is now going to break things twice as quickly while Mozilla attempts to keep pace with Google’s apparent obsession with Chrome’s version numbers.

Everyone my age knows what the stereotypical ‘robotic’ voice is. They changed it because they wanted to hide the fact you were talking to a machine.

We all know that a mouse moving in a perfectly straight line means a machine is controlling it, while humans do something more like a squiggly line. Basically a normal human drawing a line looks like someone with Parkinsons did it as compared to what a machine drawing a line looks like.

Similarly, humans typing have pauses that tend to end after set thoughts. N

Model routing is becoming a key component of the enterprise AI stack, dynamically sending prompts to the right AI model to optimize speed and costs. However, current frameworks mostly treat routing as a static classification problem, which severely limits their potential.

A new open-source framework called Agent-as-a-Router tackles this bottleneck, treating the router as a dynamic, memory-building agent. It uses a Context-Action-Feedback (C-A-F) loop to track model successes and failures and update the behavior of the router. 

The researchers also released ACRouter, a concrete implementation of this paradigm. In their tests, ACRouter significantly outperformed static routers and the expensive strategy of defaulting to premium models, all without requiring teams to train massive models or write endless heuristics.

For real-world applications, this framework provides the option to replace hard-coded AI infrastructure with self-optimizing systems that can adapt to changes in user behavior and foundation models used in the enterprise AI stack. 

The economics of routing and the information deficit

Single-model setups are useful for experiments but detrimental when scaling AI applications. AI engineers use model routing to map tasks to cheaper and faster open models when possible, while reserving expensive frontier models for complex reasoning. 

Currently, developers rely on two main mechanisms for this task. The first is heuristics-based routing, which relies on hard-coded manual rules. For example, a developer might write a rule dictating that if a prompt contains certain keywords, it is routed to GPT-5.5. Otherwise, it goes to a self-hosted open source model like Kimi K2.7. 

The second mechanism is static trained policies. These are machine learning classifiers trained on historical datasets that look at the prompt’s embeddings and predict the best model based on past training data.

Both approaches are static. When the researchers tested these existing mechanisms on real-world coding and agentic workflows, they found a hard ceiling on accuracy. The key finding shows that static routers suffer from a severe information deficit. Because they only evaluate the input text and never see if the model actually succeeded in executing the task, they guess blindly when faced with complex edge cases.

This results in three distinct points of failure. First, static routers suffer from a frozen information state, meaning they cannot accumulate new execution feedback during deployment. Second, they fail in out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. They break down during day-two operations when enterprise data or user behavior shifts because their training data no longer matches reality. Finally, they are highly vulnerable to model churn. A static classifier trained on today’s models may become obsolete when a better model drops the following week.

Agent-as-a-Router: A self-evolving system

The core thesis of the Agent-as-a-Router is that a truly effective router must acquire and accumulate execution-grounded information during deployment, essentially learning on the job. 

The researchers achieved this through the C-A-F loop. When a new prompt arrives, the router examines the prompt and task metadata, such as the programming language or difficulty. It then searches its historical memory for similar tasks to see which models succeeded or failed in the past. The router uses this context to select the target model and execute the task. Finally, the system observes the real-world outcome, extracts a success or failure signal, and writes this feedback back into its memory to inform future routing decisions.

Consider an automated enterprise data analytics pipeline. The router receives a SQL generation task and sends it to an open-source model like Kimi. The model hallucinates a column name and fails to compile the SQL. The C-A-F loop observes the compiler error, registers it as feedback, and logs it. The next time a similar obscure SQL query arrives, the router checks its context and routes the task to a more advanced model like Claude Opus 4.8. 

ACRouter

The researchers developed ACRouter as the concrete instantiation of this framework. It is composed of three core components: the Orchestrator, the Verifier, and Memory. This architecture is supported by a tool layer to physically execute the C-A-F loop.

The Memory module powers the context phase. Built on a vector store, it retrieves relevant past interactions and updates the historical database with new outcomes. The Orchestrator handles the action phase. It processes the user prompt alongside the retrieved memory to select the most capable target model from the available pool. The Verifier manages the feedback phase by evaluating the chosen model’s output to generate a clear success or failure signal.

The tool layer hooks the Verifier into real-world execution environments, like a Python code interpreter, an agentic sandbox, or a database engine. The tool layer allows the system to execute the generated code or query and observe the exact outcome, providing the verifiable signal the router needs to learn.

The Orchestrator itself is lightweight. Instead of a massive, computationally heavy large language model, the researchers trained a sub-billion parameter adapter based on Qwen 3.5 (0.8B parameters), which means it can be self-hosted on a device of your choice.

ACRouter in action: Outperforming the frontier baselines

To stress-test the framework, the researchers introduced CodeRouterBench, an evaluation environment comprising roughly 10,000 tasks with verified scores across eight frontier models, including Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4, Qwen3-Max, and GLM-5. The evaluation was split between in-distribution (ID) tests (covering nine single-turn coding dimensions like algorithm design and test generation) and an out-of-distribution (OOD) agentic programming testbed. The OOD tasks were qualitatively different, requiring multi-step planning, file navigation, and iterative debugging to see if the router could adapt to fundamentally new domains.

The baseline results revealed why a single-model strategy is flawed: no single model dominates every category. For example, while Claude Opus 4.6 achieved the highest average performance, it was outperformed in algorithm design by GLM-5 (an 86% relative improvement) and in test generation by Qwen3-Max (a 111% improvement), despite Opus costing roughly 12 times as much as smaller models like Kimi-K2.5. 

In the benchmarks, static routers continuously failed by sending a specific niche coding task to a model ill-equipped for that exact syntax. The static router had no way to know the code was failing to execute. In contrast, ACRouter adjusted its strategy after receiving negative feedback signal from the execution environment. 

According to the researchers’ benchmarking, ACRouter sits firmly at the Pareto frontier of cost and performance. On both the ID task streams and the complex OOD agentic tests, ACRouter achieved the lowest cumulative regret, a metric measuring sub-optimal routing decisions over time. On the in-distribution test set, ACRouter cost $13.21 across the full task run, compared to $34.02 for always defaulting to Opus — a 2.6x savings.

It dynamically matched tasks to the most capable model for that specific niche, suggesting that enterprises can achieve or exceed frontier-level accuracy across diverse workloads without paying a premium price for every query. 

Caveats, limitations, and how to get started

While the Agent-as-a-Router paradigm solves the information deficit, it is not a blanket solution for all AI workflows. 

The framework shines in verifiable tasks where the Verifier gets a clear success or failure signal from the environment, such as coding or data retrieval. It is effective for applications with distribution shifts and domains where different models excel in completely distinct niches. 

Conversely, the setup is overkill for trivial tasks where any model will suffice, or for low-volume applications that do not justify the engineering overhead. It is also unsuitable for subjective domains, such as creative writing, where a correct answer cannot be easily verified and feedback signals are impossible to standardize.

The researchers open-sourced the code on GitHub and released the orchestrator model weights on Hugging Face under the Apache 2.0 license. The router is compatible with Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode.

Newton’s Cradles have long been staples on office desks, their five steel balls transferring motion in a satisfying chain of collisions. Most versions eventually lose their rhythm as energy dissipates through air resistance, sound, heat, and slight changes in the shape of the balls during impact. A recent project changes the outcome by adding a small, precisely timed push that replaces those losses. The result looks like the classic toy yet keeps swinging for hours on battery power alone.

The solution is based on some cleverness, with an inductive proximity sensor that is activated when one of the end balls begins to descend. The microcontroller then takes over and provides a short charge of current to the electromagnet located immediately below the ball’s path, just enough to give it a slight nudge and restore energy that would otherwise be lost. Timing is key in this situation; if you do it too soon or too late, the ball will either not get any help or will be yanked out of its natural swing. The builder began with two sensors for early experiments to obtain a strong grasp on the motion, but then reduced it to one sensor and some predictive math based on the swing rate, which appeared to function just as well with less hardware.

CERROPI Large Newtons Cradle Pendulum with 7 Balls, Physics Perpetual Motion Desk Toys for Office, Calm…

• SCIENTIFIC DESIGN：CERROPI newton’s cradle adopt scientific design,keep the pendulum balls perfectly lined up,make it possible to swing 50s+. Perfect…
• SUPERIOR QUALITY：Our newtons cradle made of 8mm chromed metal steel bar, 20mm steel Ball,high-impact nylon, ultra-thin nano technology provide…
• WIDE APPLICATION：This newton balls can be used as office desk gadgets toys to relieve stress; as teaching aid,teaching science intuitively; as toys…

The power comes from a rechargeable 18650 battery cell, which receives a voltage increase via a boost converter to give the electromagnet a solid, strong push. A MOSFET does the switching, while a diode protects the circuit from voltage spikes when the coil turns off. When it’s time to charge the battery, simply plug it into a USB-C socket embedded inside the base. There is an issue with ball weight changes, which might cause undesired vibrations in the intermediate balls. So the builder installed some small permanent magnets to provide a modest downward drag, helping to suppress resonance and keep the energy flowing smoothly from end to end.

The frame started off as a normal cradle that you could buy off the shelf. The main custom work is fitting the electromagnet and sensor into the base without changing the outward appearance too much. As it turned out, the build ended up looking like a cute little warship, complete with raised accents that conceal the battery, circuit board, and wires, as well as the charging port, which is tucked away under a magnetic cover.

Assembly begins by arranging the mechanicals by suspending the steel balls from the frame with strings or cables, and then attaching the electromagnet just below one of the end balls. Then you continue on to the electronics, aligning the proximity sensor to detect the ball’s approach, routing the wires to the microcontroller board, and soldering the power components in place. The microcontroller’s firmware detects the ball and calculates the pulse length, and then it’s just a matter of fitting everything into the enclosure, attaching the stabilizing magnets, and giving it a test swing to ensure everything works properly.
[Source]

Almost 60pc of young children across Europe experienced emotional or psychosocial problems online, according to the European Commission.

The EU is considering banning social media for children under the age of 13 years old, as child safety on the internet takes political priority across the world.

The bloc has, over the years, targeted social media giants for their addictive designs, recommender system feeds and child safety measures with its landmark Digital Services Act (DSA) that carries a hefty penalty for offenders.

In 2025, it preliminarily found that Meta and TikTok breached its rules by failing to meet its standards for keeping minors safe online.

Last week, the bloc preliminarily found that Meta did not assess the risks stemming from its addictive design on the physical and mental wellbeing of its users, including minors.

And in April, it found that Instagram and Facebook did not take effective measures to keep minors under 13 from using its platforms, despite Meta’s own terms and conditions stating otherwise.

Social media platforms generally require their users to be at least 13. However, these restrictions can be and are easily circumvented.

Mounting pressure to effectively address wider concerns surrounding the harms caused by social media on children’s developmental growth has led the EU to consider a similar strategy as Australia, Canada and the UK – as well as several of its own member states.

France, Sweden and Greece are currently proposing a social media minimum age at 15 years, while Denmark is considering a limit at 16. Others, including Portugal, Spain, Germany and Poland, are also considering legislating on the topic.

The European Parliament, late last year, called for a harmonised EU digital minimum age at 16, and suggested parental consent for those between 13 and 16.

But in its latest recommendations, an EU special panel on child safety suggests restricting social media for those under 13 until platforms demonstrate that their services are safe by design.

The bloc said it wants to address this issue at the highest level to avoid further fragmentation of the single market and to standardise the level of access children enjoy across the region.

The topic is clearly important to EU citizens, with a recent reporting finding that 92pc of Europeans believe protecting children online should be a priority for its leaders.

“The status quo, a world where we continue to allow Big Tech unrestricted access to our children, will only consign another generation to more mental harm, addiction and misery,” said Commission president Ursula von der Leyen today (13 July).

Her statements come as nearly 60pc of young children across Europe are believed to have experienced emotional or psychosocial problems online, according to the Commission.

Across Europe, leaders are taking a similar stance. Outgoing UK prime minister Keir Starmer said in June that tech giants “failed” to protect children online, while French president Emmanuel Macron told the media in January that “children’s brains are not for sale” after France adopted a bill banning social media for children under 15.

“The more we learn, and the more we see the impact on our children, the stronger the argument becomes for a social media start date,” the Commission president said, adding that the solution might not be foolproof and would take time.

The Commission is working on an “easy to use, privacy preserving, and open-source” age verification app to assist with its goals.

‘Age restrictions alone will not make digital spaces safe’

Commenting on the EU panel’s recommendations, South East Technological University’s Dr Dean McDonnell said: “Children’s digital media use is ecological, shaped by families, schools, peers, communities and the opportunities available offline.

“Any reduction in children’s access to digital spaces should always be matched by investment in safe public spaces, play, sport, arts, libraries, and youth services,” he told SiliconRepublic.com. “Removing one developmental environment without strengthening others can have significant consequences.”

McDonnell, a lecturer of psychology and a member of the Psychological Society of Ireland, stated that the most important thing that the report gets right is that “children are not a single group, and online safety is not a problem parents can solve alone”.

“A toddler, a primary-school child and a 17-year-old have very different developmental capacities, vulnerabilities and rights. The move from protection and supervision towards growing autonomy is sensible, although the broad 3-12 and 13-18 bands will need much finer guidance in practice.

“Its strongest recommendation is to shift responsibility towards the companies designing these environments,” he added. “Safety by default, age-appropriate settings and limits on attention-capturing features such as infinite scroll and recommender systems should not be optional.

“A common minimum age may provide a useful baseline, but age restrictions alone will not make digital spaces safe. Their value will depend on privacy-preserving age assurance, consistent enforcement and independent evaluation.”

Updated, 4.54pm, 13 July 2026: This article was amended to include a comment from South East Technological University’s Dr Dean McDonnell.

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.

We are absolutely stoked to announce that the Hackaday Superconference is taking place this year November 6th through 8th in glorious Pasadena California, and we want to see you there!

If you’ve been to any of the previous nine Supercons, you know that it’s a fantastic gathering of the most motivated and interesting hackers around — but it’s also been a relatively small gathering. And while we love the very high signal-to-noise ratio of folks who show up, we’re always a little bit sad when the tickets sell out because it represents hackers who couldn’t be there.

So this year, we’re celebrating Supercon Ten by expanding out of our traditional location at the Design Lab so that we can accommodate 20% more hackers, while still keeping the cosy nature of the event intact. So if you’ve been wanting to come to Supercon, but procrastinated the ticket sales every year, this year is looking 20% better.

Call for Proposals

If you want to give a talk to an interested audience of hackers just like you, now is your chance. Fill out the Call for Participation form before Wednesday, Aug 12th to put your hat in the ring. Presenters not only get to share their work with a like-minded audience, but they get in the door free! Presenting really is the best way to attend a conference like this – it’s the ultimate ice-breaker. (Plus, did we mention free?)

We will have two tracks of talks on two stages, and both are a mix of shorter 20-minute talks and longer 40-minute sessions, so whatever the size of your ideas, we have the slot for you. As always, we like to hear about your projects: hardware, software, creation, destruction, or anything in-between. In short, if you have a talk that would interest the readers of Hackaday, it fits. Check out last year’s slate if you’re curious, but bear in mind that we like to see new stuff, so don’t feel constrained by precedent. If you’re into it, there’s a good chance that many of us are too!

All you need is an abstract, a title, and a solid general idea of how the talk is going to go. First time speaker, or grizzled veteran: get your proposal in now.

Plus ça Change…

Supercon Ten starts out as usual with a casual badge-hacking day at Supplyframe HQ on the morning of Friday Nov 6th. We love this day because there’s “nothing” to do! It’s the perfect way to ease into the conference: the doors open, and the food and coffee starts flowing. As the solder melts, brought-along hacks get demoed, friendships form, and plans get hatched. We go on well into the night, with music and festivities to keep you motivated or distracted – the choice is yours.

Saturday and Sunday are chock-full of talks, workshops, challenges, and other events. This year, we’ll be a few blocks south at the ArtCenter South Campus, which means that we’ll be relocating our traditional back-alley ambiance to significantly fancier digs. But of course, we’ll have space for hacking, mingling, and watching the talks.

Sunday evening comes too soon, and at the end of this second day of talks, we’ll let you showcase all of the badge hacks that you’ve been working on before spilling out into the town and falling far too late into bed.

Just because enough is never enough, we’ll probably also meet up informally sometime Thursday night if you’re already in town. And if you’re able to finagle a half-day Monday into your schedule, you’ll find that a bunch of folks have off-schedule side trips that are always popular.

Get Excited!

We know that we’re announcing late this year. The new venue, combined with a late Hackaday Europe, made for a lot more planning to be done. But now that all of our ducks are in a row, we’re very much looking forward to November. And of course, we can’t wait to see what you all are going to bring with you to Supercon. After all, it’s the Hackaday community that makes it great.

Get your talk proposals in now, and in the next few weeks, we’ll open up ticket pre-sales. Tell your friends, neglect to mention it to your enemies, and start making your Supercon plans today.

Cutting the West’s reliance on China would carry a staggering price. A new study puts the cost of decoupling from China at $23.6tn over 25 years, and warns the bill would land hardest on the industries building Europe’s tech future.

The West has spent three years talking about reducing its dependence on China. A new study tries to price it. According to an exclusive report in the Financial Times, the consultancy EY-Parthenon estimates that the US, the eurozone and the UK would need to invest an extra $23.6tn over 25 years to end their reliance on China in critical industries.

That figure covers manufacturing, technology, research, software and the supply chains beneath them. The wider effort to cut dependence on Chinese chips and rare earths has been building across Western capitals for months.

The burden is split unevenly.

The analysis puts the US bill at $13.7tn, the eurozone’s at $9.1tn and the UK’s at $800bn by 2050. Together that is roughly $940bn in extra spending every year. It would sit on top of what these economies already commit to energy, defence and infrastructure.

For the EU, EY-Parthenon says, the annual sum is close to doubling its entire budget.

A bill the size of the AI boom

The figure is easier to grasp against the technology it would help protect. The US share works out at about $550bn a year. That is close to the $600bn that large American tech groups poured into data centres in 2025.

Put another way, unwinding China from Western supply chains would cost roughly as much each year as the entire American AI build-out. And the materials at stake are the same ones that feed chips, electric cars and those data centres.

Why the materials matter

China’s grip is tightest where it is hardest to replace.

The International Energy Agency expects China to supply more than 60 percent of the world’s refined lithium and cobalt by 2035. It puts China’s share of battery-grade graphite and rare earths at about 80 percent. These are the raw inputs for batteries, magnets and semiconductors.

Europe is already staring at a difficult decade for its chip sector, yet the feedstock still runs through Chinese refineries.

The risk is not hypothetical. Last year Beijing imposed export controls on critical rare earth metals after tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Car production lines in the US and Europe came close to halting before the two sides agreed a truce.

The scare has already pushed the EU towards a rare-earth stockpile and new bets to break China’s grip on chip materials.

The inflation catch

Money alone would not solve it, the report argues. Alicia García-Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis, says the West cannot decouple quickly even with heavy investment. Beijing controls too many industrial inputs, she notes, from rare-earth processing to the active ingredients in medicines.

EY-Parthenon adds a second problem. Chinese goods often carry a factory price advantage of 20 to 100 percent, so replacing them would push prices up. The firm estimates European critical sectors could see prices 1 to 2.5 percent higher, keeping inflation above the 2 percent targets of the European Central Bank and the Bank of England.

A partial retreat

The authors do not argue for standing still. Mats Persson, a former Downing Street adviser now at EY-Parthenon, says localising supply chains without saddling taxpayers and consumers with prohibitive costs will be one of the biggest challenges of the coming years.

He expects the annual outlay to start smaller and grow as the effort widens.

A full break, he suggests, is unrealistic. A partial one is not. For Europe, the number sharpens a hard choice. Its push for technological sovereignty now carries a price tag, and the bill for the tools it most wants to control runs into the trillions.