TL;DR
Apple is aiming for a WWDC 2027 smart glasses unveil and is debating whether to include a camera amid the privacy backlash Meta created
JBL Go 4: JBL’s new-for-2026 Go 5 has hit the market, so you can find some discounts on its predecessor, the Go 4. The Go 5 does have some modest enhancements, including slightly improved sound and battery. A bit heavier than the Go 4 at 8.16 ounces, the Go 5 is equipped with programmable “mood boosting” lighting slits toward the front on the top and bottom of the speaker, and the Go 5’s battery live is rated for up to 10 hours versus the JBL Go 4’s 7 hours (at moderate volume levels).
Bose SoundLink Home: The best way to describe Bose’s new SoundLink Home speaker is as the spiritual successor to the SoundLink Mini 2, which was quietly discontinued in late 2018. Available in two color options, the SoundLink Home is a portable Bluetooth speaker with up to 9 hours of battery life, but it has more of an indoor design, with an aluminum chassis and no water resistance. (You can move it around, but it’s not a speaker you’d take to the beach or camping.)
Ultimate Ears Everboom: Not too long ago, Ultimate Ears released its higher-end Epicboom Bluetooth speaker, which sounds very good but is pretty pricey at $300 and somewhat large. The newer Everboom is about half the size, weighing in at 2.1 pounds (the Epicboom weighs 4.36 pounds) and is more travel-friendly. It can’t produce as much sound or bass as the Epicboom, but it does play relatively loud, and I was in some ways more impressed with its sound than the Epicboom’s. By that, I mean for its size: It’s one of the best-sounding speakers out there, delivering punchy bass and nicely detailed sound.
Anker Soundcore Boom 3i: In some ways, Anker’s new Soundcore Boom 3i is the spiritual successor of the company’s popular Soundcore Motion Plus speaker that was released in 2020. It’s similarly shaped but has more of an outdoor adventure slant with Anker calling it “built for the wild” and billing it as the first Bluetooth speaker with playback in water, as it floats and “auto-corrects” to keep the speaker drivers facing upward just above the surface. As you’d expect from a speaker that promotional photos show strapped onto a kayak (it does have a detachable carrying strap), the Soundcore Boom 3i is fully waterproof and dust-resistant, with an IP68 rating. Anker takes things a step further, touting the Boom 3i as “5X” saltwater-resistant. Read our full review.
Sony ULTField 3: I like the new designs of Sony’s new-for-2025 ULT Field 3 and ULT Field 5 Bluetooth speakers, which can stand vertically or lie horizontally. Both speakers are fully waterproof, dustproof, and rustproof (IP67 certification) and offer significantly improved sound over their predecessors, with more bass and better overall clarity. Both also include a new removable shoulder strap; I used it more with the heftier ULT Field 5 than the lighter ULT Field 3, which is about half the size of its more-expensive sibling. Needless to say, the ULT Field 5 sounds better, delivering bigger sound with more bass. But the ULT Field 3 also delivers more bass and volume than you’d expect, given its relatively compact size (and it offers better clarity and bass performance than its predecessor, the SRS-XE300). Read our full review.
Soundcore by Anker Select 4 Go: The Soundcore by Anker Select 4 Go doesn’t have quite the build quality as JBL’s Go 4 micro Bluetooth speaker (it has a budget feel to it), but it offers comparable sound quality and costs half the price. Like the JBL Go 4, the similarly named Select 4 Go sounds decent for its tiny size and is able to output just enough bass to avoid sounding tinny. Also, it’s fully waterproof and even floats. Battery life is rated for an impressive 20 hours at moderate volumes, and you can pair two of these speakers together for stereo sound. It’s definitely a good value.
Soundcore by Anker Boom 2 Plus: I consider the smaller Boom 2 the best value among current Soundcore by Anker Bluetooth speakers because it delivers very strong sound for a speaker that costs a little more than $100. But the larger and more expensive Boom 2 Plus is a better-sounding speaker that plays louder and produces bigger sound with more bass. It costs less than $200 and competes well with boom box speakers from JBL and Sony that cost upward of $400.
JBL Grip: JBL makes a lot of Bluetooth speakers, and its new-for-2025 Grip model falls somewhere between its micro-sized Go 4 and Clip 5 speakers and the Flip 6, which is more mini-sized. While it doesn’t sound quite as good as the Flip 7, it costs less and is more compact, weighing in at .85 lbs., or 385 grams, which makes it easy to carry around. While it certainly has its sound limitations, particularly in the low-end, there’s just enough bass to avoid sounding flat, and the speaker offers good treble clarity and strong midrange performance (the midrange tends to be where these small speakers perform best). I also liked the integrated loop and built-in lighting element on the back that’s programmable via the JBL companion app for iOS and Android. It’s more subdued than the light shows on some of the larger speakers and more accent or “ambient” lighting, as JBL calls it. Available in multiple color options, the Grip is rated for up to 14 hours of battery life at moderate volume levels and is fully waterproof and dust-resistant with an IP68 rating.
Tribit Stormbox Micro 2: Now that Tribit has released the StormBox Micro 3, a budget version of Bose’s excellent SoundLink Micro 2 speaker, the second-gen StormBox Micro 2 is on sale for less than $50. The new Micro 3 offers improved acoustics and double the battery life, but the Micro 2 remains a good palm-sized wireless speaker that you can strap to the handlebars of your bike. Read our full review.
Sonos Move 2: Sonos’ Move 2 portable speaker is a pretty straightforward product to review. That’s because it improves upon its already very good predecessor in a couple of key ways. In addition to offering more spacious sound thanks to a new dual-tweeter acoustic architecture, it also delivers much improved battery life (up to 24 hours). Sonos also tossed is some modest design updates, including new touch controls. Alas, those upgrades come with a higher price — the Move 2 with an included a wireless charging dock costs $449 (£449, AU$799), or $50 more than the original. But it’s being sporadically discounted to $350, and if you can afford it, it’s an excellent portable speaker that makes for a nice addition to your home’s Sonos lineup, with the ability to travel more widely thanks to its Bluetooth support. Read our Sonos Move 2 review.
Sonos Roam 2: Sonos’s original Roam speaker sounded very good for its compact size, but many users complained that it was tricky to go from Wi-Fi mode at home and Bluetooth mode on the go. With the release of the new Roam 2, which comes in five color options, those connectivity issues go away. The reality is the Roam 2 ($180) isn’t much of an upgrade. It has the same acoustic architecture (and the same impressive sound for its size), but now it has two buttons — one for power and the other for Bluetooth — instead of a single power button. That Bluetooth button lets you pair the speaker with any Bluetooth-enabled audio device right out of the box. Previously, the setup was more convoluted and required you to connect to your Sonos home Wi-Fi network first.
JBL Flip 7: New for 2025, JBL didn’t drastically changed the design of its seventh-gen Flip portable Bluetooth speaker ($150), which looks similar to its predecessor but has a new Push-Lock accessory system that allows you to swap between a carabiner and a loop (both are included). There are also some upgrades on the inside, including a newly developed woofer that helps improve bass performance. Like its big brother, the Charge 6, this fully waterproof and dustproof (IP68) speaker is equipped with something called “AI Sound Boost,” which JBL says keeps the speakers from distorting as their drivers are pushed to their “maximum capability.” In other words, JBL has improved the speaker’s digital processing with upgraded algorithms and the Flip 7 mostly manages to avoid distorting at higher volume levels. (I didn’t find it distortion-free, though.) If sound quality is a priority, the large and more expensive Charge 6 is a better option (it does produce bigger sound with bass noticeably more bass). But as I said, the 1.21-pound Flip 7’s sound has been leveled up, and it remains one of the better-sounding speakers for its size, improving its standing against Bose’s similarly priced SoundLink Flex, which received some small upgrades in 2024. Read our Flip 7 first take.
Tribit Stormbox Blast 2: In 2024, Tribit released a second-gen version of its popular Stormbox Blast Bluetooth boom box speaker. The Stormbox Blast 2 ($260) has an upgraded design — it’s less boxy and generic looking than the original — along with upgraded speaker drivers and two inputs for wired microphones for karaoke (the microphones are sold separately). The speaker is quite beefy, weighing in at 15.8 pounds, and it’s rated for 200W of power, with an 80W subwoofer, dual 45W mid-range drivers and two 15W tweeters. This thing plays loud, has powerful bass (I mainly kept the bass boost mode engaged) and measures up well against more premium Bluetooth boom box speakers from JBL and Sony that cost about twice as much.
LG Xboom Bounce (Core): LG’s partnership with Black Eyed Peas’ frontman Will.i.am is paying dividends as the company’s latest crop of Bluetooth speakers measure up well against key competitors in the space. I tried the Xboom Grab ($140) and the Xboom Bounce ($200) and came away liking both speakers. But the larger Bounce has significantly fuller sound, with a lot more kick to the bass. On both speakers, I appreciated that they seemed well tuned and more natural sounding than many Bluetooth speakers I test, particularly in the midrange where vocals live (vocals are a bit forward, but I liked that). Note that there doesn’t seem to be any difference between the Bounce and Bounce Core, so get the cheaper model, which is down to about $120.
Tribit XSound Plus 2: The Tribit XSound Plus 2 is the successor to the similarly priced MaxSound Plus, which was a very good value. The XSound Plus 2 plays a little louder (it has a 30-watt vs. 24-watt power rating) and also has a slightly better battery (up to 24 hours at 50% volume vs. 20 hours). Additionally, this speaker is equipped with Bluetooth 5.3 and is able to connect to the Tribit app and link up in party mode with Tribit’s XSound Plus 2, StormBox Flow and StormBox 2 Bluetooth speakers.
Sony LinkBuds Bluetooth speaker: Sony made some mistakes with its LinkBuds Bluetooth speaker. First, it launched it in its LinkBuds line with a couple of new LinkBuds, so it kind of got lost in the shuffle. Second, it’s a little too expensive at its list price. But ignoring all that, I was surprised how good it sounded for its tiny size. It’s easily among the best-sounding micro Bluetooth speakers out there and is equipped with a two-way speaker system featuring a dedicated tweeter and Sony’s X-Balanced Speaker unit (woofer), giving it much fuller sound than you’d expect, with punchy bass and good clarity. It’s still a mono speaker, though you can pair two of them together for stereo sound.
Anker Soundcore Motion X600: Anker’s Soundcore Motion X600 mini boom box not only has a premium look and feel with a metal grille and carrying handle, but it also includes some interesting features like spatial audio and support for Sony’s LDAC audio codec. It sounds impressive for its relatively compact size and is a good value. Weighing 4.2 pounds (1.9 kg), it has some heft to it, but it’s light enough to carry around without feeling like you’re getting a workout. The speaker is available in gray, green and blue and is equipped with five drivers, including two woofers, two tweeters and one full-range, upward-firing driver “in a unique speaker array that combined with Soundcore’s audio algorithm and DSP helps create a wide (and tall) soundstage for listening to any type of music,” according to Anker. It’s rated for 50 watts of total power, with two 20-watt amps devoted to the woofers and tweeters and a third 10-watt amp powering the upward-firing driver.
Anker Soundcore Motion 300: Bose makes its excellent SoundLink Flex Bluetooth speaker that sells for about $150 and sometimes goes on sale for less. The Soundcore Motion 300 is Anker’s answer to that Bose speaker. Around the same size as the Bose, it doesn’t sound quite as good but it sounds impressive for its compact size and lists for only $80. Like the SoundLink Flex, it can be laid down flat with its speaker firing up toward the ceiling or propped up as shown in the photo above. It’s IPX7 waterproof and delivers up to 13 hours of audio at moderate volume levels. There’s also support for Sony’s LDAC audio codec for Android and other devices that support Bluetooth wireless streaming with LDAC.
Tribit Stormbox Flow: Tribit’s StormBox Flow is another Bose SoundLink Flex knockoff for less that shares some similarities with the Soundcore Motion 300, including the same list price. The Tribit may sound slightly better than the Motion 300, edging it out for bass performance by a tad, but the Anker speaker wins on design. Like the Bose SoundLink Flex, the Tribit StormBox Flow can be laid down flat with its speaker firing up. You can also wirelessly pair two of the speakers together for stereo sound. It has an IP67 rating, which means it’s dust-resistant and fully waterproof. Tribit says it delivers up to 30 hours of audio at moderate volume levels. That’s impressive.
Harman Kardon Luna: Harman Kardon, which is owned by Samsung, makes popular JBL Bluetooth speakers like the Flip 6 and JBL Charge. The under-the-radar Harman Kardon Luna may just be the best mini Bluetooth speaker you’ve never heard of. It’s not only attractively designed — it comes in black or white — but sounds surprisingly good for its size, with clear, natural sound and punchy bass (it’s a mono speaker with a dual-driver design that features a woofer and a tweeter).
Sony ULT Field 1: Sony launched the SRS-XB23 a few years ago, and it was a fairly popular portable Bluetooth speaker. The lightweight and compact ULT Field 1 sort of looks like a cross between the XB23 and the newer SRS-XE200. It sounds significantly better than the XB23, which had bass-forward sound but just didn’t offer enough clarity and detail for my tastes. The ULT Field 1 sounds fuller and more balanced and competes favorably with JBL’s popular Flip 6, which lists for the same price.
Tribit Stormbox Lava: Tribit’s new-for-2025 Stormbox Lava speaker can be best described as a poor man’s JBL Xtreme 4 speaker. It doesn’t sound as good as that JBL speaker, which costs $380. The Lava looks a little generic, but it does output a lot of sound with pretty powerful bass and costs a lot less (a removable shoulder strap and carrying handle are included). This is not the most refined-sounding speaker — it lacks some clarity — but if big sound is what you’re after in a boombox-style speaker, the affordable Stormbox Lava fits the bill. With an IP67 dust- and waterproof rating, it also seems pretty durable and offers up to 24 hours of battery life at moderate volume levels. As for extra features, there’s a charge-out port, and you can link multiple Tribit speakers in party or stereo mode and tweak the sound via the Tribit app for iOS and Android.
Marshall Middleton: With Marshall recently releasing the Middleton in 2025, the original Middleton speaker is being discounted. It isn’t exactly compact, but tt also isn’t so beefy that you get a workout carrying it around. Weighing 4 pounds (1.8kg), it’s bigger than Marshall’s Emberton speaker and smaller and more portable than its Kilburn II speaker. Any way you look at it, it sounds very good for its size and puts out a surprising amount of quality bass while offering good treble detail and natural-sounding mids (where vocals live). I also liked that it has equalizer controls on the speaker itself and is fully waterproof and dustproof with an IP67 rating.
JBL Clip 4: JBL has released the newer Clip 5, which features slightly better sound and a new carabiner design. But the Clip 4 is still a very good micro Bluetooth speaker and can be had at a discount.
Sony SRS-XB100: Sony’s smallest Bluetooth speaker was once again modestly upgraded in 2023, with a new Bluetooth chipset, slightly improved sound and speakerphone performance. This portable Bluetooth speaker is both dust- and waterproof with an IP67 certification, and, like its predecessor (the SRS-XB13), it’s rated for 16 hours of battery life at moderate volume levels and charges via USB-C. Equipped with Bluetooth 5.3 with support for the AAC and SBC audio codecs, the speaker plays bigger than you’d think for its small size, with some punch to its bass. It’s pretty impressive for a mini mono speaker.
JBL Flip 6: As JBL has launched the newer Flip 7, which has improved sound and a little better battery life, the Flip 6 is being discounted. While it doesn’t sound as good as its successor, the Flip 6 is still a good Bluetooth speaker that offers good sound quality in a rugged design (it’s IP67 waterproof and dust-resistant) — and it doesn’t look much different from the Flip 7.
JBL Charge 5: I still like the Charge 5, which also comes in a more expensive Wi-Fi version, but JBL has released the improved Charge 6. That said, with that newer model available, we’re seeing some nice discounts on the older Charge 5. At that price, it is worth considering.
Sonos Roam: Available in white or black for $179, the Roam is currently the smallest and most affordable Sonos speaker (if you don’t count those $99 Sonos-compatible Symfonisk Ikea Wi-Fi bookshelf speakers), although it’s fairly expensive for a mini wireless speaker. This Sonos Roam model, like the bigger Sonos Move 2 portable speaker, is equipped with both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi and can tap into an existing Sonos multiroom audio system and link with other Series 2-compatible Sonos speakers. Learn more about the Sonos Roam with our hands-on review.
Tribit XSound Go: Despite being on the market for several years, the Tribit XSound Go remains one of the top Bluetooth speakers for the money. Besides sounding decent for streaming your favorite music and more, this affordable Bluetooth speaker is also fully waterproof. It has had some small upgrades over the years. Read our full review of the Tribit XSound Go to find out more.
JBL Pulse 5: JBL’s Pulse speaker is now in its fifth generation, and both the sound quality and 360-degree light show have been improved. JBL has “expanded the transparent outer body” so the customizable light show looks more impressive. (There’s a companion app for iOS and Android that allows you to alter the colorful lighting effects.) The speaker is also IP67 dustproof and waterproof, and it offers up to 12 hours of battery at moderate volume levels. I did a full review of the JBL Pulse 5 in January of 2023, and it still holds as an excellent speaker option.
Anker Motion Boom: Anker’s more expensive Soundcore Motion Boom Plus (see above) is a substantial sound upgrade over the original Motion Boom, but this model remains a very good mini boom box for the money. Equipped with a handle and weighing a little over 4 pounds, the speaker reminds me of one of those giant flashlights or “floating lanterns” that were in vogue about 30 years ago. For the record, the Motion Boom actually does float and is fully waterproof with an IPX7 rating. Find out more in our full Anker Motion Boom review.
UE Hyperboom: Ultimate Ears’ Boom Bluetooth speakers come in a few different sizes, but none of them are as big as the Hyperboom. A supersize wireless speaker that tips the scales at a hefty 13 pounds, the Hyperboom makes the UE Megaboom 3 look unquestionably puny. It’s not cheap, but its sound quality is better than a lot of the jumbo portable speakers on the market right now. Read our full review of the UE Hyperboom.
Marshall Willen: Marshall’s little mono Willen speaker is similar to Bose’s SoundLink Micro and other micro speakers like the Tribit StormBox Micro 2. Also, like those speakers, it has an integrated strap on its base so you can clip it onto a backpack or even to your bike’s handlebars. Its 2-inch full-range driver and two passive radiators put out more sound than you’d think it would for its tiny size, and it offers decent clarity as well as just enough bass to avoid sounding tinny (you can choose from three preset sound modes).
Bang & Olufsen Beosound A1 (2nd Gen): A couple of years ago, Bang & Olufsen upgraded its dome-shaped aluminum-clad A1 speaker with improved battery life, better speakerphone performance (it now has a three-microphone array) and slightly improved sound. It’s not only the smallest wireless speaker from the Danish company; it’s technically the most affordable. You can learn more about the small-but-mighty B&O Beousound A1 in our full review.
Bose SoundLink Micro: Although a little pricey and due to be upgraded, the Bose SoundLink Micro sounds remarkably decent for its tiny size, delivering more bass than other pocketable speakers. It’s a fully waterproof Bluetooth speaker and is available in three color options, although the blue version appears to be hard to find. I tested the speaker in 2018 and rated it an 8.3 out of 10 in the Bose SoundLink Micro review.
Anker Soundcore Motion Plus: Anker’s Soundcore Motion Plus came out in 2019, but it remains one of the best-sounding speakers for around $100. It’s larger than many mini Bluetooth speakers, but it’s still compact. It manages to sound quite a bit fuller than much of the competition in its price range, with bigger bass, more volume and better clarity. It’s also fully waterproof (IPX7-rated) and has support for the aptX streaming codec for devices like Samsung’s Galaxy phones that support it. Read more in my Anker Soundcore Motion Plus review.
Bang & Olufsen Beosound Explore: It’s a little overpriced for the sound quality it delivers, but the Beosound Explore is a very good little speaker that has a sleek, eye-catching design, is fully waterproof and dustproof (IP67 rating), and offers excellent battery life, with up to 27 hours of music listening at moderate volume levels.
Monoprice Soundstage 3 (Out of Stock): Monoprice tends to make pretty generic-looking electronic products, and its understated Soundstage 3 Bluetooth speaker probably isn’t going to wow you with its design, although its minimalist aesthetic has its appeal. It’s a good value thanks to its ability to play big sound with strong bass and decent clarity, with 50 watts of power that drives a 5.25-inch “concave aluminum cone woofer” flanked by two 1-inch silk-dome tweeters. It also has good connectivity options, including digital optical, 3.5mm analog and RCA analog wired inputs that allow you to connect your television or another stereo component. There’s also a sub-out port.
Tribit XSound Mega (Out of Stock): Over the last few years, Tribit has made several Bluetooth speakers that deliver a lot of boom for the buck. Add its new XSound Mega to the list. Tribit is billing the XSound Mega as more of an outdoor speaker — a lanyard is included for toting it around as a sort of mini boombox — but it works just fine indoors. It has an LED light show that you can turn on or off, and there are three EQ settings for sound: XBass, Music and Audiobook. Additionally, it can be used as a power bank to charge your mobile devices.
Tribit StormBox (Out of Stock): The StormBox looks like a cross between a UE and a JBL speaker. We suspect that’s not an accident. This fully waterproof speaker costs significantly less than the JBL Flip 5 and Flip 6 and produces a bigger sound. Its rechargeable battery offers up to 20 hours of battery life for playing music and more. Tribit’s XSound speakers are probably a better value, but the StormBox is more stylish.
Apple is aiming for a WWDC 2027 smart glasses unveil and is debating whether to include a camera amid the privacy backlash Meta created
Apple is currently aiming to unveil its first smart glasses at next June’s Worldwide Developers Conference, with a consumer release by the end of 2027, according to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman. But the company’s engineering and marketing teams are still wrestling with a question that will define the product: whether its glasses should include a camera at all. The teams developing the device, code-named N50, within Apple’s Vision hardware group see privacy as the top priority, Gurman reported on Saturday.
That caution is a direct response to the backlash Meta created. Meta has sold more than seven million pairs of its Ray-Ban smart glasses, but the product’s camera has become a lightning rod for privacy complaints, with women being secretly filmed in public and Kenyan data workers reporting they were asked to review intimate footage captured by the devices. Apple executives are acutely aware that simply entering the same category risks undermining a privacy reputation the company has spent more than a decade building.
Apple is planning safeguards that go beyond what Meta and Samsung have offered. The company will favour on-device processing, eschew facial recognition, and avoid anything resembling Meta’s proposed “super-sensing” mode, which would continuously analyse a wearer’s surroundings without activating the recording indicator light. Apple also does not plan to follow Meta’s practice of having contractors review footage captured by its glasses, having already dealt with a similar controversy around its Siri voice assistant.
One option Apple executives have debated would include the full camera system but disable photo and video recording entirely, limiting the cameras to feeding visual data into AI tools that identify objects and places. Another prototype eliminates the camera hardware altogether, retaining hands-free Siri access, music playback, and phone calls without any recording capability. Both approaches would sacrifice what has made Meta’s glasses popular: effortless first-person video of holidays, children, and sporting events.
The privacy problem is not theoretical. Apple is entering one of the most important product cycles in its history, with the 20th anniversary iPhone, a second-generation foldable, camera-equipped AirPods, and new Macs all expected in 2027. Courtrooms across New York State have already banned smart glasses, Royal Caribbean has barred them from casinos, restrooms, and children’s areas, and Samsung has called the privacy situation an “industry-shared problem” requiring a collective fix.
The glasses were originally targeted for introduction later this year under the N50 code name, but Apple delayed the timeline partly to refine its privacy message. The company knows from experience that good intentions do not prevent misuse: its AirTags, designed to locate belongings, quickly became associated with stalking. Camera-equipped glasses will inevitably face similar problems, and Apple will likely spend years updating software and working with regulators to address them.
The first half of 2026 has been marked by waves of economic uncertainty. From fuel prices to inflation to market dives, here’s why leaders should stay flexible as they prepare for the uncertain months ahead.
Furthermore, it has been marked by significant economic volatility. Business leaders have had to navigate a uniquely unpredictable market defined by wild swings in gas prices, better-than-expected inflation readings, jumpy consumer behavior and jittery markets.
Close up crypto trading,Photo by Rafael Minguet Delgado
As leaders look to the months ahead, they are bracing for more volatility. Here’s a quick snapshot of the past six months and a look at how flexibility will define success in the latter half of 2026.
In 2025, EY noted that fuel would be a difficult area of the economy to prepare for in the short term. While some market conditions appeared favorable, EY also noted that the global nature of the oil, gas and chemicals sector continued to create uncertainty.
In 2026, that prediction has been proven true more than once. By March, gas prices jumped sharply in reaction to global supply concerns. Crude oil prices rose quickly, pushing prices at the pump from $2.98 per gallon of regular gasoline in late February to $4.08 per gallon on April 2, more than a dollar in just over a month.
Easing tensions in late spring led to a quick drop as supply fears faded. All seemed to be heading back to normal. But by mid-summer, prices were on the rise again as potential oil supply chain disruptions once again became a topic of concern.
While there is no clear indicator of what is to come next, a year ago EY was already saying that companies will face a degree of uncertainty that will be higher than has been seen in several years. This won’t necessarily lead to higher fuel prices and less activity in the latter half of 2026. But it is a distinct possibility, and businesses are clearly bracing for the unknown.
EY added that even in the oil, gas and chemicals sector itself, businesses are looking for ways to manage the uncertainty. Mergers and acquisitions will likely continue, fueled by companies looking for cost advantages that reinforce their ability to survive economic downturns.
While gasoline prices have a trickle-down effect on the global economy, there are other factors that are exacerbating the current state of the economy, as well. Once again, these are a melting pot of good and bad news that is making it increasingly difficult for leaders to predict what comes next.
For example, in June, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reading dropped by 0.4%. This brought the annual inflation rate down to a less-than-expected 3.5% reading. This was pleasant news for consumers and business owners alike.
Despite the good news, a simultaneous tech sell-off in June hit stocks hard. The tech sector was particularly vulnerable, and in a single day early in the month, the Nasdaq dropped by 4.1%, resulting in the loss of an entire month of gains. The sell-off has continued in fits and starts, and as of this writing, even the much-lauded ticker for an industry-leading space company has dropped below its IPO price within weeks of meteoric initial gains.
The one predictable thing in the current economy is that nothing is consistent. Good news and bad news are balanced, pulling markets in different directions and leaving many businesses bracing for more economic volatility in the months to come.
The hardest part of the equation is the fact that few, if any, of these developments are actually resolved. Gas prices, for instance, could continue to rise, limiting consumer spending. But they could also find relief if geopolitical tensions ease again. If that were to happen, it could open opportunities for businesses to take advantage of improved consumer sentiment.
The real factor all business leaders should be investing in isn’t predicting an accurate roadmap for the next few months. Instead, they should be investing in adaptability, resiliency and contingency plans. The more leaders can maintain a degree of flexibility through things like cash savings and flexible decision-making, the more likely they will be to make the most of the months ahead.
The eventual launch of Apple Glass is still expected in 2027, but based on how people distrust Meta’s smart glasses, Apple may have a challenge ahead of it.
Smart glasses have been rumored to be in development at Apple for quite a while, and aren’t expected to emerge from Cupertino anytime soon. But, when Apple actually does ship them, it will have to deal with the problem of privacy.
In Sunday’s “Power On” newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman discusses the privacy implications of smart glasses. Specifically how Apple must work hard to counter the distrust of consumers who are jaded by versions sold by Meta.
Apple will be introducing its first smart glasses at WWDC in 2027, Gurman writes, followed by a consumer release by the end of the year. The summer launch is intended to give developers an opportunity to start building apps before the public gets a chance to buy the hardware.
It’s apparently taken so long to get the glasses ready because Apple is concerned with how it maintains its image of maintaining privacy. Something both the engineering and marketing teams at Apple are working on.
While Apple’s Vision hardware group insists privacy is the top priority, it has to contend with what’s already on the market. When it comes to smart glasses, that means the releases from Meta.
Though Meta does get some credit for being a commercial success when it comes to smart glasses, it’s only part of the story. Meta’s reputation for failing when it comes to privacy protection has become an anchor around its neck.
This has had the result of poisoning the well when it comes to consumers. People are not content with being around people wearing cameras on their head, due to the possibility of being recorded while conducting everyday activities in public.
While the world is used to smartphone cameras being a problem, the stealthy nature makes smart glasses seem worse to consumers. Meta has worked to ally those privacy fears, including using an indicator light that disables recording if it’s been tampered with by the user.
Apple wants to include similar protections, but it does so with a reputation for privacy to uphold. While it could use the same privacy-forward messaging, Apple is also going to try to distinguish itself from rivals in various ways.
The favoring of on-device processing and avoiding features like facial recognition or Meta’s “super-sensing” mode should help Apple. Add in a pledge not to use the cameras or recordings for AI model training and steering clear of using third-party contractors to review footage could help too.
Apple’s also working on a number of hardware and software-based privacy features, with the glasses in mind.
There’s also the prospect of Apple eliminating the camera element, and instead providing access to AI features, calls, and audio without visual assistance. Apple has apparently already prototyped something similar.
Executives have considered the possibility of including cameras, but just for the AI tools to see the world.
This would be similar to the idea of external cameras on the rumored AirPods Pro, so AI can identify real-world items and mention environmental elements to the user. Not for users to take photographs or videos at all.
Apple has a tough challenge ahead of it in convincing the world that its smart glasses aren’t privacy-destroying devices. At least the company has a year to refine its plan before it needs to brace the users for the release.
It isn’t unusual for carmakers to launch new models or even new sub-brands in an attempt to push their lineup upmarket. Relaunching an entire brand to push upmarket is another matter entirely, but that’s exactly what Jaguar is currently in the process of doing. Sales of its existing models were slow, so Jaguar wiped the slate clean and is now replacing its entire lineup with the all-new Type 00 EV.
To say the Type 00 has proved polarizing would be an understatement. Its unusual design attracted a huge wave of criticism, although plenty of people eventually came around to the car’s looks. At the time of writing, it remains to be seen whether or not this unprecedented gamble will pay off, but given the controversy surrounding the design of Jaguar’s new-era electric GT, it seems like a great time to look back at some of the brand’s coolest designs to date.
About a decade before Jaguar staked its future on large, luxury all-electric GTs, it previewed a car that could have seen the company head down a very different path. The CX-75 is arguably one of the biggest what-ifs in Jaguar’s history, and it has continued to attract plenty of attention from both enthusiasts and collectors even 15 years after its unveiling. The first CX-75 concept car broke cover in 2010, and by 2012, Jaguar had built several fully working prototypes with assistance from Williams Advanced Engineering.
The car was unlike anything Jaguar had built before, with an F1-inspired powertrain and a carbon monocoque chassis. Its 1.6-liter gas engine produced 500 horsepower and it was assisted by electric motors that pushed its top speed to over 200 mph. Jaguar executives greenlit the car for production in 2011, only to backtrack a year later and scrap the project entirely. Speaking to Autocar at the time, brand director Adrian Hallmark blamed the economy, saying that “we feel we could make the car work, but looking at the global austerity measures in place now, it seems the wrong time to launch an £800,000 to £1 million supercar.”
Although it never reached production, the CX-75 did end up featuring in the James Bond movie “Spectre.” Seven replica cars were built for filming, albeit with a 5.0-liter supercharged V8 engine rather than the complex F1-style hybrid system of the planned production car. Former Jaguar chief designer Ian Callum also built a one-off road legal CX-75 from a former stunt car, unveiling it in 2024.
One of the most commonly repeated pieces of trivia about the Jaguar E-Type is that Enzo Ferrari once called it the most beautiful car in the world. Whether Ferrari actually ever uttered those exact words is debated, since the only surviving accounts of his quote come from people who allegedly overheard them at the 1961 Geneva Auto Show. Either way, Ferrari was clearly impressed with the Jaguar when he first saw it, and it hasn’t lost any of its charm in the intervening decades between then and now.
While the original Series I design is arguably still the most iconic, Jaguar continually tweaked the car over the course of its production. It also boosted the car’s power output to keep it competitive with its ever-changing roster of competitors. The car proved hugely popular with celebrities and collectors when it launched, and it remains that way today. Many high-profile collectors like Jay Leno have their own restored E-Types, and the most pristine examples can fetch more than $200,000 at auction.
Designing a follow-up to an icon like the E-Type was always going to be a difficult task. It didn’t help that the XJS (initially known as the XJ-S) was a different kind of car to its predecessor, focusing more on luxury cruising than traditional sporting prowess. Like many Jaguars since, the XJS also suffered from build quality issues, and it developed a reputation for being especially difficult to maintain and repair.
Its mixed reputation kept prices for used examples low for decades, but in recent years, the XJS has started to gain increasing momentum as a collectors’ car. Prices are up and interest in restomods like the TWR Supercat is high, with V12-engined versions carrying a premium.
In recent decades, V12 engines in general have become increasingly rare, and it certainly helps that the XJS’ looks have aged much better than most of its mechanical components. Less well looked after examples still have a tendency to fall apart and rack up eye-watering repair bills as a result, but when they’re working, few other cars at their price point offer the same combination of power, sophistication, and style.
The original F-Type was already a good-looking car, but Jaguar added in some extra design touches from the Le Mans-winning D-Type when it launched the F-Type Project 7. The graphics on the front and side are a tribute to the classic racer, as is its lack of a roof. It does technically come with a removable soft top, but it can only be used at lower speeds. That makes it highly impractical for the wet, windy British weather that usually blankets the country during the winter months, but the Project 7 was never meant for daily use.
Unlike the regular F-Type, the Project 7 was designed more for the track than the road. It was priced like an exclusive track day toy, too, with a retail price of £135,000 at launch, equivalent to around $214,000 at the time. Its 567 horsepower V8 engine wasn’t much more powerful than an F-Type R, but with a production run of just 250 examples, it was far more rare than any other F-Type variant. Arguably, it looked better than all of them too, with its classic racer-inspired design elements being blended with cutting-edge aero and carbon-ceramic brakes.
Alongside the E-Type, the XK120 is one of the most instantly recognizable cars in Jaguar’s history. It was first unveiled in 1948 and takes its name from the XK engine under its hood and its claimed top speed. In the end, it turned out to be even faster than its 120 mph claim, reaching 126.448 mph in testing. That was a record for a production car at the time, and it made what was already a very desirable car even more appealing to buyers.
Jaguar originally intended to build only 200 examples of the car, but it became so popular that more than 12,000 examples were eventually sold. The last example left the factory in 1954, with the car’s replacement, the XK140, debuting shortly after. The XK140 featured heavier bumpers to meet the demands of the U.S. market, as well as a new grille. Although it was a more capable car, it’s arguably not quite as good looking as the original XK120.
Before the F-Type came along, there was the XK grand tourer. In top-spec XKR-S form, it featured a supercharged V8 engine with around 540 horsepower on tap. It was relatively under-the-radar compared to most of its competition, but still had plenty of appeal to those in the know. To celebrate the end of its production run, Jaguar gave the car a racing-inspired makeover, and the result was the limited-edition XKR-S GT.
It was described by Jaguar at launch as being “the ultimate track‑focused but road‑going iteration of the XK,” with a laundry list of changes compared to the regular XKR-S. The rear wing and additional aero bits were the biggest visual differences, but Jaguar’s engineers also created a bespoke suspension for the car, as well as adding new carbon-ceramic brakes, revised steering, and plenty of other smaller tweaks.
To reduce the car’s weight, Jaguar also removed the car’s rear seats, and swapped the front seats to racing-style bucket seats. One of the few things that wasn’t changed was the supercharged V8, although it sounded even better thanks to the reduced soundproofing in the XKR-S GT. These alterations helped make the car far more expensive than its series-production counterparts, and it was much rarer too. Jaguar built 30 examples for the U.S. market out of a total of 50 cars, and charged around $175,000 for the privilege of owning one.
Today, Jaguar’s only global-level motorsports team competes in Formula E, but historically, it has been most closely associated with endurance racing. The company won the 24 Hours of Le Mans seven times, making it the fourth most successful brand in the race’s history. Only Ferrari, Audi, and Porsche have more overall wins. The first Le Mans-winning Jaguar was the C-Type, which took the crown in 1951.
The car was designed using a mix of brand new parts and parts borrowed from the XK120. Its engine and transmission both came from the latter, but its bodywork was all-new. Its shape was the work of Malcolm Sayer, a former aircraft designer who, before he was commissioned to work on the C-Type, had just returned from Baghdad University in Iraq.
According to historian Philip Porter as reported by the BBC, it was during this time teaching in Baghdad that Sayer met a German professor who taught him “a system of designing shapes mathematically” that he’d subsequently employ when designing the C-Type. Sayer later played a key role in designing both the D-Type and E-Type. He reportedly never cared much for the aesthetics of his cars, instead preferring to focus on their aerodynamic efficiency. Nonetheless, the C-Type and its successors are arguably among the best looking cars of their respective eras, as well as being fiercely competitive on track.
One of Jaguar’s best-known classics is the Mark II, which was produced between 1959 and 1967. Rather than being an all-new car, it was instead a facelift of the brand’s older saloons, which are collectively known today as Mark I models. The Mark II was a significant improvement over its predecessors both in looks and in performance, and it was far more popular with buyers.
It’s still a favorite among collectors who like to regularly drive their cars, because it’s both comfortable and fast by the standards of the era. Decades after its unveiling, in 1993, the Mark II’s design became the subject of an unusual tribute, when Japanese boutique carmaker Mitsuoka borrowed its looks for its Viewt city car. It is, to put it nicely, a bit of a head-scratcher.
Bizarrely, the Viewt was based on the JDM Nissan Micra, and only produced a little over 100 horsepower. That means a well-specified Mark II, particularly one with the 220 horsepower 3.8-liter six-cylinder engine, would still be able to comfortably outpace a Viewt, despite being roughly half a century older than its cheap Japanese imitator.
Long before the CX-75, Jaguar built another forward-thinking prototype that never ended up making it to production. The XK180 was built in 1998 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the XK120, and it took design inspiration from Jaguar’s legendary C-Type and D-Type. The company even used the same panel supplier for the XK180 as it did for its Le Mans-winning race cars. Two prototypes were constructed, with one being right-hand drive and the other being left-hand drive. The left-hand drive prototype was sent off to be showcased in the U.S., while the other stayed in the U.K.
Under the hood of the XK180 was a 4.0-liter supercharged V8 engine, which had been borrowed from the XKR and tweaked to be substantially more powerful. With 450 horsepower on tap, the car had around 70 extra horses compared to Ferrari’s V8 supercar of the era, the F355. It’s not clear how much faster than the Ferrari it would have been, though, since Jaguar never released official performance figures for the car.
Several journalists, including Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson, were given the keys to the XK180 to show off its capabilities. Despite its publicity drive, Jaguar never considered the car for production. The XJ220, launched around half a decade before, had proved to be much harder to sell than Jaguar had anticipated. Its poor sales meant there simply wasn’t enough development budget left for the brand to make the XK180 a production reality.
By the time it reached the end of its production run, the XJS was getting long in the tooth. Its successor, the X100 generation XK, was a much more modern car, with sleek bodywork and a brand-new V8 engine. It first debuted in 1996, and it would take another two years for the faster, more aggressive-looking XKR to arrive in dealerships.
At launch, the XKR made 370 horsepower, but later models pushed that figure up to roughly 400 hp. Alongside its power boost, the XKR also featured various exterior tweaks, as well as larger wheels.
It served as Jaguar’s range-topping performance car — when it worked, of course. Earlier models suffered engine issues thanks to the Nikasil that lined the cylinders, with the engine failing altogether in extreme cases. That patchy reputation has helped keep used prices down compared to many of its rivals from the era.
Fresh off the glory of two wins at Le Mans with the C-Type, Jaguar engineers developed the follow-up using a similar formula. Much like the C-Type, the D-Type used a revised version of the XK engine that was initially launched in the XK120. It was paired with a lighter chassis and the most aerodynamic bodywork that Jaguar could accommodate, then sent straight back to Le Mans for testing.
The C-Type took its Le Mans wins in 1951 and 1953, with the D-Type’s first win arriving in 1955. It won again in 1956 and 1957, making it even more successful than its predecessor. Further adding to its trophy cabinet, the D-Type also took wins at Spa, Silverstone, and Sebring, among others. Despite being a cutting-edge race car, Jaguar wasn’t choosy about who could own a D-Type. It was available in the brand’s dealerships alongside its other models, and it retailed for a low £1,895, which meant Jaguar took a loss on every D-Type it sold.
The regular Jaguar XE is not an especially interesting car. It’s an entry-level luxury sedan that competes against the likes of the BMW 3-Series and Mercedes-Benz C-Class, and it never made much of an impact against its class-leading German rivals. But the XE SV Project 8 is a very different beast.
Jaguar handed an XE to its engineers and instructed them to turn it into a Nordschleife-conquering track car, and so they fitted it with a V8 engine that churned out around 600 horsepower. Then, they stripped out anything that they could to reduce its weight and fitted a motorsport-derived suspension and an all-wheel drive system.
After adding in carbon fiber racing seats, carbon-ceramic brakes, and a huge rear wing, they sent it round the Nordschleife and promptly achieved the lap record for a four-door sedan. The car was put into limited production so that wealthy owners could see what all the fuss was about. In total, just 300 examples were built.
Jaguar’s XJ220 supercar holds the unusual distinction of both being a ground-breaking world record holder and also not living up to buyers’ expectations. It achieved a Guinness World Record for the fastest production car, hitting 217.1 mph, slightly short of its original 220 mph goal. It’s also rare, with just 282 examples built. That wasn’t a deliberate move on Jaguar’s part though. Originally, the plan was to sell 350 examples, but with such low demand from buyers, Jaguar ended production early.
The lack of demand mostly stemmed from the differences between the XJ220 concept and the production version. The concept featured a 6.2-liter V12 engine, while the production version borrowed a 3.5-liter V6 engine from the MG Metro 6R4 rally car. The concept also included all-wheel drive, active aero, and adjustable suspension, none of which were present in the production version. It was still an incredibly fast and very good-looking car, just not quite as ground-breaking as Jaguar initially promised.
After proving itself as a force to be reckoned with at Le Mans in the ’50s, it would take Jaguar several decades to once again take the winner’s crown. Its sixth win would arrive courtesy of the XJR-9 in 1988, but in between those two winning eras, Jaguar developed the XJ13.
It was originally intended to mark Jaguar’s return to Le Mans, but it never ended up making it to the start line. Development took longer than initially planned, and Le Mans homologation rules changed during that time.
Jaguar would have needed to build 50 production cars in order to enter the XJ13, which wasn’t a financially viable option for the cash-strapped company. And anyway, rival carmakers like Porsche and Ferrari had already developed faster race cars in the time between the start of the XJ13’s development and its completion. As a result, the XJ13 was shelved, with only one, stunning prototype ever built.
A few years before the XJ220 concept took collectors by storm, the lesser-known XJR-15 supercar was Jaguar’s apex predator. In total, around 50 examples were built, but only 27 were road legal. Unlike the XJ220, the production XJR-15 featured a V12 engine under its sleek bodywork, as well as a cutting-edge carbon fiber chassis.
Confusingly, the Jaguar XJR-15 was not actually built by Jaguar. It was instead built by Jaguar Sport, a subsidiary of Tom Walkinshaw Racing. Walkinshaw wanted a road-legal version of the Le Mans-winning XJR-9, and so set about building one without asking Jaguar first.
Jaguar was quietly developing the XJ220 at the time, but allowed the XJR-15 to go ahead on the basis that it would be used for a racing series. TWR subsequently obliged and created a one-make series specifically for the XJR-15. The roadgoing version was essentially a race car with the bare minimum changes needed to get a license plate, making it one of the most extreme Jaguar-badged cars ever, as well as one of the coolest.
Paramount Skydance wanted to own Warner Bros. Discovery by September, but the $110 billion transaction is now frozen while 12 states and the Writers Guild of America pursue Clayton Act cases that could decide who controls a substantial piece of Hollywood. Instead of closing the deal, Paramount may spend much of the next ten months paying for the privilege of waiting.
Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America have agreed that the proposed acquisition cannot close until five days after the court rules on the merits of the antitrust cases or June 1, 2027, whichever comes first.
The agreement also prohibits Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery from taking steps to integrate or consolidate their operations. The companies therefore remain separate, and the planned combination of Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., CBS, CNN, HBO, Showtime, Paramount+, HBO Max and dozens of cable networks has been placed in legal cold storage.
The deal values Warner Bros. Discovery at approximately $81 billion in equity and $110 billion including debt, with Paramount agreeing to pay $31 per share in cash. It would be one of the largest media transactions ever completed, assuming it ever gets completed.
This stopped being a conventional merger review some time ago. It has become an expensive courtroom battle involving federal regulators, Democratic state attorneys general, Hollywood labor groups, international competition authorities and enough political baggage to fill several private jets.
The new agreement replaces the shorter temporary restraining order issued on July 20 by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California.
The cases are The State of California et al. v. Paramount Skydance Corp. et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-07116-AMO, and Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. et al. v. Paramount Skydance Corp. et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-07212-AMO.
The judge had originally scheduled an August 3 hearing to determine whether the merger should remain blocked under a preliminary injunction. That hearing and its associated briefing deadlines have now been canceled. The WGA has withdrawn its preliminary injunction motion, although both the states and the guild may renew those requests later if necessary.
The parties must submit proposed trial schedules by July 31. No trial date has been established.
Paramount is calling this a victory because it removes the immediate preliminary injunction fight and creates a more direct path to a full trial. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James are also calling it a victory because Paramount cannot complete the transaction while their cases proceed.
Both sides are declaring victory, because nothing says “we won” quite like Paramount preparing to burn through roughly $7 million per day while everyone waits for a judge to decide whether the deal survives.
The July 20 ruling was not a final determination that the merger violates antitrust law. Judge Martínez-Olguín did, however, find that the states had presented enough evidence to justify stopping the companies from closing while the court considered the larger case.
The states identified three markets that they claim would be harmed:
For the temporary order, the judge focused primarily on wide release theatrical distribution.
According to the states’ evidence, Paramount and Warner Bros. would hold an estimated 27 percent share of that market. The proposed combination would also increase the Herfindahl Hirschman Index, a standard measure of market concentration, by approximately 359 points to 2,074.
The court found that those figures created a substantial enough presumption of reduced competition to justify maintaining the status quo. It also found that allowing the companies to close could result in operational consolidation, the exchange of competitively sensitive information and employee terminations or reassignments that would be extremely difficult to reverse.
Once the corporate omelet has been cooked, courts are generally not enthusiastic about being asked to put the eggs back in their shells.
The judge also declined to accept Paramount’s argument that greater efficiency in streaming would offset potential damage in the theatrical market. That does not mean the streaming argument is irrelevant to the final case, but it was not enough to defeat the states’ request for temporary relief.

Paramount argues that the states have defined the entertainment market too narrowly.
Its position is that Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery do not merely compete with Disney, Universal and Sony. They compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple, YouTube and technology companies with vastly greater resources than most legacy Hollywood studios.
That argument deserves more than a dismissive shrug.
Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are both trying to survive an industry in which cable revenue continues to deteriorate, theatrical attendance remains inconsistent and streaming requires enormous spending before anyone discovers whether there is a sustainable business underneath it.
Paramount insists that combining the companies would create a stronger competitor, increase investment in films and television, and provide consumers with a more credible alternative to the largest technology backed entertainment platforms.
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice reached a similar conclusion when it closed its investigation in June. The Antitrust Division said its extensive review indicated that the transaction would increase competition and benefit American consumers and workers.
The European Commission has also approved the merger, although it imposed conditions involving Paramount’s European film distribution relationship with Universal. The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority is still examining the transaction.
The states argue that creating scale by removing another major competitor is not a solution. It is merely concentration wearing a more fashionable suit.
The combined company would control two of Hollywood’s five major film studios, more than 50 basic cable channels, CBS, CNN, HBO, Showtime, Paramount+, HBO Max, Discovery+ and three major television production operations.
For movie theaters, fewer major distributors could mean less negotiating leverage, less favorable revenue sharing and fewer films receiving wide theatrical releases.
For writers, actors, directors and production workers, fewer independent buyers can mean fewer places to pitch a project, fewer competing employment offers and greater power concentrated within one corporate structure.
That is the heart of the WGA’s separate Clayton Act case. The guild argues that the merger would reduce writing opportunities, weaken compensation and leave creators with fewer employers. The July 24 standstill agreement applies to both the states’ lawsuit and the WGA action.
Paramount says a stronger company would produce more. The WGA fears a larger company would have more power to produce less and pay less for it.
Welcome to the actual fight.
The political divide is impossible to ignore.
Every attorney general involved in the state lawsuit is a Democrat. The Trump administration’s Justice Department, meanwhile, cleared the merger and issued an unusually detailed statement arguing that the transaction would strengthen competition.
Critics have also raised questions about the Ellison family’s relationship with President Trump and about what Paramount ownership could mean for CNN, particularly after the editorial upheaval surrounding CBS News.
There is no court finding that the Justice Department’s decision was politically motivated. The party affiliation of the attorneys general does not invalidate their market analysis either.
But the optics are dreadful.
One political camp sees the merger as a necessary counterweight to Netflix and Big Tech. The other sees it as an illegal concentration of entertainment, news and employment power. Each side insists it is protecting consumers, workers and democracy, which is generally the moment one should check that the silverware is still on the table.
The more important question is whether either side is still focused on the structural problem facing the industry.
Legacy studios need greater scale to compete with technology companies capable of subsidizing entertainment from cloud computing, advertising, hardware sales and other businesses. Yet repeatedly combining studios also leaves fewer buyers for creative work, fewer independent decision makers and an ever smaller number of companies deciding what gets produced and distributed.
Hollywood is being asked to choose between concentration and irrelevance. Neither option looks especially healthy.
The delay comes with a substantial financial cost.
Paramount agreed to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders an additional 25 cents per share for every quarter the merger remains incomplete after September 30, 2026. That works out to approximately $650 million per quarter, or roughly $7 million per day.
Should the legal battle run until June 2027, Paramount’s additional payments could approach $1.7 billion.
Paramount accepted that provision while competing against Netflix for Warner Bros. Discovery. It helped make Paramount’s offer more attractive by transferring much of the regulatory delay risk away from WBD shareholders.
The company cannot now act surprised that someone eventually turned on the meter.
Nothing changes immediately for Paramount+ or HBO Max subscribers.
The services will remain under separate ownership while the cases proceed, and the companies cannot begin integrating their operations under the proposed transaction. Any combined streaming platform, unified technology system or larger corporate restructuring must wait.
That does not prevent Paramount+ or HBO Max from independently changing prices, programming or subscription tiers. Streaming companies have never required a federal judge’s assistance to make a monthly bill more irritating.
The longer delay also leaves open major questions involving theatrical distribution, physical media, licensing arrangements, CNN and CBS News, and the future of overlapping cable networks.
Employees face the least appealing version of corporate uncertainty: potentially ten months of waiting to learn whether their departments will eventually be combined, sold, reduced or eliminated.

The Paramount Warner Bros. Discovery merger has moved beyond regulatory review and into a full contest over what competition in modern entertainment actually means.
Paramount has a legitimate argument that traditional media companies need greater scale to compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple and YouTube. The states and the WGA have an equally legitimate concern that combining two of Hollywood’s five major studios could reduce competition for audiences, theaters and creative workers.
The court must now decide which market definition reflects reality: the narrower world of studios, theatrical distribution and cable licensing, or the much larger ecosystem dominated by global streaming and technology platforms.
Politics has not merely entered the discussion. It is sitting at the head of the table and asking everyone else to explain themselves.
The merger might still happen. It might be blocked. It could also collapse beneath the weight of legal fees, ticking payments and corporate fatigue.
For now, Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery remain competitors, the trial clock has started and the financial clock begins on September 30.
Hollywood wanted a new empire. It received two antitrust cases, a political war and a $7 million daily invoice.
Prentis, a new AI research lab focused on computer use models, co-founded by serial entrepreneur Ritankar Das and tech heavyweights Reid Hoffman and Mark Pincus, is in talks to raise $100 million at a $1 billion valuation, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
Launched in April, Prentis is training models to learn how office workers navigate routine workflows across documents and systems, with the goal of building AI agents that can control computers to automate those tasks.
Prentis will ostensibly develop agents tailored to these customers’ needs, such as handling insurance claims and automating customs duty refund exceptions without needing a human to hunt down paperwork.
The startup has already signed contracts worth up to $50 million with several customers, including healthcare management service organization, a manufacturer, and goods and clothing manufacturers, the two people familiar with the discussions tell TechCrunch. This echoes investor materials obtained by TechCrunch that predict an estimated $75 million annualized run rate by the third quarter of this year. (Prentis’ pitch deck notes those figures reflect estimated annualized value based on a contracted fee equal to 20% of savings realized, not recognized revenue, and are “performance-dependent and subject to final execution.”)
By its own account, Prentis says its Hive-32B model outperforms rivals, including OpenAI’s GPT-5.4 and Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6, on two computer-use benchmarks: WindowsAgentArena, which measures end-to-end task completion on real Windows applications, and ScreenSpot-v2, which tests a model’s ability to locate the right on-screen control.
In its pitch deck, the company argues its edge comes from running a much smaller, cheaper model. In fact, it claims roughly 10 times lower cost per task than frontier APIs, saying it’s more economical to deploy across everyday workflows. TechCrunch hasn’t independently verified the company’s benchmark results.
The startup is betting that automating everyday office tasks will soon outpace coding as AI’s biggest use case, but it’s a crowded market. Anthropic, Open AI, and Mira Murati’s Thinking Machines Lab are also working on developing AI agents for computer use, one of the sources said. Anthropic has also been acquiring talent in the category directly — it bought the Seattle computer-use startup Vercept earlier this year, folding in its founders and shutting down its product.
Prentis didn’t respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.
Ritankar Das, CEO of Prentis, is also the founder of Titan, a holding company that builds and operates AI companies. Das, now 31, was UC Berkeley’s youngest University Medalist in more than a century, graduating at 18 with a double major in bioengineering and chemical biology before earning a master’s in biomedical engineering at Oxford.
He founded Titan in 2014 after dropping out of an AI PhD program at Cambridge, where he’d been a Gates Cambridge Scholar. Das has described Titan as an intentional throwback to an old-fashioned holding-company model like Berkshire Hathaway, one that’s funded by its own exits rather than outside limited partners.
Other businesses launched and operated by Titan include AI-powered virtual care provider Tala Health, which raised a $100 million seed round last year, and Forta Health, an autism care startup that raised $55 million led by Insight Partners in 2024. Titan-founded disease prediction company Dascena was acquired by CirrusDx in 2022.
Prentis is a side project of sorts for its two other co-founders. Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock partner, said last month that he was stepping down from Microsoft’s board after nearly a decade to go “founder mode” on Manas AI, an AI drug-discovery startup he’s also backing; he was an early OpenAI investor and co-founded Inflection AI with Mustafa Suleyman before Microsoft absorbed most of that team in 2024.
Pincus, the Zynga founder, now runs the investment firm Reinvent Capital with Hoffman as a senior adviser, and published a memoir, “Life at the Speed of Play,” last month.
Prentis has already hired more than 25 employees, including researchers who previously worked at OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Tencent, and Alibaba, according to its website.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
A woman who stole from a Wendy’s returned for her AirPods, a shooting followed an argument about an Apple Watch, and another FedEx robbery in Memphis, all in this week’s Apple Crime Blotter.
The latest in an occasional AppleInsider feature, looking at the world of Apple-related crime.
A second suspect has been arrested in the $30,000 theft of Apple products from a FedEx shipment in Miami-Dade County in November of 2025, CBS Miami reported.
The suspect was arrested on July 15 and faces cargo theft charges.
The other suspect was arrested in June, and both men were FedEx employees.
A Delaware woman who was accused of attacking a worker and stealing from the register at a Dover Wendy’s later returned when she realized she’d left behind an AirPod.
According to NBC Philadelphia, police say the 33-year-old woman had attacked a store employee after complaining about her order and asking for a refund. After the worker refused, the woman took $15 from the register and “attacked” a worker standing in the way.
She then turned her attention to a second employee, whom she punched “multiple times in the chest,” before throwing the stolen money out the window. Before leaving, she “threatened to shoot restaurant employees.”
Shortly afterward, she returned to look for lost AirPods, and officers who were there to investigate arrested her. She was charged with strong-arm burglary, conspiracy, terroristic threats, and related offenses.
In another incident at a fast food restaurant, a man was shot outside a Memphis Burger King on July 14, in a dispute that followed an argument over a stolen Apple Watch.
According to Fox 13 Memphis, two men accused a third man of stealing an Apple Watch from them. This led to a fight, in which one of the men was shot, and his son was injured. The man who was shot was reportedly in critical condition.
The two men accused of the shooting fled but were later caught. One was charged with attempted second-degree murder and the other with being an accomplice.
Also in Memphis, two men were arrested on July 15 and charged with stealing 120 iPhone 17 Pros and 50 Tinymoose smart pens from a FedEx processing facility.
According to Action News 5, the two men were caught on camera taking the items, which had a total value of $133,377.
A sheriff’s deputy in Bucks County, Pa., was charged on July 21 with taking photographs of naked suspects and prisoners and using his personal iPhone to share the photos with colleagues and other contacts. He’s also accused of lying to investigators.
In an announcement from the Bucks County district attorney, the deputy has been charged with official oppression, unsworn falsification to authorities, possessing an instrument of crime, and obstructing the administration of law or other government function.
He was also removed from his position in June.
A court-authorized forensic search of the deputy’s iPhone uncovered some of the images, the D.A.’s office said.
During one incident, when he and other deputies arrived for an arrest, the then-deputy covered his own body camera.
However, “the body camera of another deputy in the room captured footage of [the deputy] removing his right glove, pulling out his personal cellphone, opening the camera application, and pointing the camera lens directly at the male.”
A 17-year-old in San Diego had several items stolen from her at the worst possible time: While she was undergoing surgery for Stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
According to Fox 5 San Diego, Sahara Morquecho was in surgery at UC San Diego Health when her purse was stolen, containing her “wallet, jewelry, ID, cash and sentimental photos of her late father,” in addition to AirPods.
While recovering, the teen followed the Find My iPhone signal and discovered the AirPods at a residence in Lemon Grove.
When a deputy went to that address, the resident wasn’t home. However, the landlord provided the person’s name, and she had prior arrests for theft.
She also worked at that hospital.
Police are searching for a man who they say stole an iPad delivery from a porch in the Bronx.
Bronx News 12 reports the box was taken on June 12 by a man in an orange hoodie, who fled in a surprisingly fancy car. It was a black Mercedes-Benz.
It’s far from rare for politicians’ lawn signs to be stolen, sometimes by a rival campaign. Such expeditions rarely lead to criminal charges, but that happened on July 20 in Tennessee, thanks to an AirTag.
According to WKRN in Nashville, Rutherford County Commissioner Romel McMurry surrendered to authorities after he was named in a theft arrest warrant. He’s accused of taking a sign for his opponent, Pat Clements.
After a series of sign-stealing incidents, Clements told the station that he placed an AirTag in one of his signs. That very sign went missing, and the signal later pinged near McMurry’s home.
McMurry told the station that he did not steal the sign, but rather “relocated” it.
A New Hampshire man accused of dragging a police officer during a June traffic stop in Massachusetts appeared in court virtually from his jail cell, via iPad. But during the hearing, he “started yelling, grabbed the iPad, and disconnected from the call,” WHDH reported.
He is charged with several crimes, including assault with intent to murder, assault and battery on a police officer, aggravated assault and battery, failure to stop for police, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and resisting arrest.
Police tracing the stolen iPhones belonging to a police officer in Kampala, Uganda, discovered a large cache of stolen iPhones, as well as other Apple products.
According to Pulse, investigators “traced the phone to an alleged network dealing in suspected stolen iPhones and spare parts.” The man who stole the phone admitted that he had sold it to a mobile phone shop.
Between the searches of the shop and the owner’s vehicle, police discovered over a hundred stolen iPhones, as well as iPads, laptops, and iPhone spare parts.
Four suspects have been arrested for their part in the scheme.
The world knows that Formula One is the pinnacle. It is the crown jewel of motorsport, where every facet is taken to its most extreme form. At any given moment, only 20 people in the world can brag that they compete in it, and only 10 of the wealthiest and most influential corporate teams can land a spot on the grid. The drivers themselves are almost superhuman. They rely on reflexes to make split-second maneuvers that can spell greatness or disaster. They know a track’s route, surface materials, elevation changes, and weather patterns as if it were their childhood home, and they train like fighter pilots to withstand the immense G-forces their cars dole out.
But the other component behind what makes the sport so exciting is the engineering. With their gargantuan budgets, Formula One teams have the freedom to experiment with esoteric and experimental automotive technologies consumer brands wouldn’t dream of touching. This freedom and creativity birth new racing innovations, but it also makes the Formula One track a proving ground. Many of the technologies discovered start with racing applications but are found to be beneficial in consumer cars as well, leading to a trickle-down effect. Many of the features we take for granted, or don’t even notice, in our cars have roots in this motorsport proving ground, and their prevalence becomes more apparent the more you look. Here are five Formula One innovations that shaped the cars we drive today.
The most important aspect of a combustion-powered car behind the engine is its gear system. Transmissions help distribute power effectively, and while many of our gearboxes today are obscenely complicated, they used to be quite simple. As it was with consumer cars for much of their history, Formula One cars relied on manual transmissions for quite a while. The simplicity and communicative nature of a manual was good for both consumers and racing drivers. However, in 1989 the status quo was shaken. John Barnard, who we will revisit quite soon, was with Ferrari at the time, and for the 1989 Ferrari 640 F1 car, he introduced a new gearing system.
The 640’s cockpit traded one pedal and one lever for a pair of paddles designed by ergonomic experts from the University of Delft. The function was stupidly simple: press one paddle to upshift and the other to downshift. This allowed Ferrari drivers to retain the control of a manual without its setbacks. They could keep both hands on the wheel at all times; the shifts were light-years quicker, and these benefits were apparent when the 640 won its first race. Ferrari quickly pulled this tech into their road cars, starting with the F355 in 1997, and other automakers would soon follow suit. The feature started with performance cars, but with the introduction of dual-clutch transmissions in the 2010s, they’ve made their way onto the wheels of cars of all levels.
Nowadays, it seems you can’t talk to an engineer, read a spec sheet, or look at aftermarket parts without seeing the words “carbon fiber.” It’s hard to believe now, but in the not-so-distant past, carbon fiber was seen as a fascinating but impractical material whose potential usage did not stretch far beyond some niche aerospace parts and the pages of a science fiction novel. Remember John Barnard? Before he made Ferrari’s special gearbox, he was one of the few people pushing for the use of carbon fiber in Formula One. Working for McLaren at the time, Barnard had to hunt down a firm willing to manufacture a carbon fiber monocoque.
Barnard landed on American firm Hercules Aerospace, and the MP4/1 was born. Skeptics thought the material would be too brittle, but a crash at the 1981 Monza GP where the chassis saved driver John Watson quickly proved this angle wrong. Lightweight, twice as rigid, and five times stronger than steel, carbon fiber’s value was undeniable, and McLaren soon used it in the F1 road car. For a while, exotics were the only options for consumer cars that utilized the material to its full potential. You could find it on sports cars, but it was often used sparingly—due to cost—and as a cosmetic wrapping for components made of another material. As production methods improved, though, the material became cheaper, and today, just about any sport-related car has some somewhere.
Sometimes in Formula One, a technology is so good it gets banned. When the Williams team was in its prime, it was the maker of one such technology. The FW14B, designed by the legendary Adrian Newey, had a host of amazing features. For one, it was one of the first times a Formula One team realized the potential of modern computing. The FW14B was fitted with a central control unit that featured a Controller Area Network bus system. We could write multiple articles explaining what this means, but the important part is that it meant any electronically connected component could communicate with any other component through a shared central nervous system rather than on delegated individual pathways.
The aero elements of an F1 car have very small fields of effectiveness, and as a car rises and falls and yaws, it can reduce the efficiency of these aero parts, as well as disperse grip force across the tires in an unpredictable manner. Engineers knew an active suspension system could fix this, but the level of communication and data processing to make it work was out of the realm of possibility, except for Williams and their CAN bus control unit. The technology was so effective that Williams cars were finishing almost half a minute before competitors, leading to its banning. That ban is only valid on the track, though, and today, many of us enjoy the smooth rides active suspension brings us.
Hybrid powertrain technology has become the baseline in modern-day Formula One, but back in 2009, the sport was just reaching the tip of the iceberg. The FIA wanted more exciting racing, and that usually translates to more overtaking. To achieve this, the 2009 regulations invited teams to build kinetic energy recovery systems to give drivers extra juice for temporary power boosts. These systems do exactly what the name suggests, but there are some variations in how it’s done.
Some KERS systems work by harvesting the rotational force under braking with a motor-generator unit, or MGU, mounted to the crankshaft. The MGU converts that kinetic energy to electrical energy, which is then stored in a battery. Mechanical KERS systems use a flywheel that spins a carbon fiber rotor under braking and stores the flywheel’s tensile potential energy, which can be reconnected to the wheels for that power boost at the driver’s whim.
KERS technology is very performance-oriented, but its concepts were quickly recognized for their application in electric and hybrid cars. Most cars with any amount of electric power already have MGUs connected to the wheels to spin them via electric power. However, they can also be used to provide resistance and harvest the kinetic energy under braking. The main difference is that, rather than storing the harvested energy in a separate battery for on-tap power boosts, the energy joins the main supply to increase range in what we now call regenerative braking.
To be transparent, while the other entries on this list are technologies you can find in many modern, entry-level consumer cars, the hot V engine configuration is still relegated to high-end sports cars and supercars like the Ferrari 296. However, its genius still makes it worth mentioning, as it solves a problem that is often thought of as an unfortunate but unavoidable law of turbocharging a car. The issue in question is turbo lag. A turbocharger works by spooling up a turbine with exhaust gases to pressurize the air, then injecting that pressurized air into the engine for more power. The issue is that when you first start on the gas, the turbine takes a moment to spin up to the appropriate RPM, leading to an uncomfortable gap in power delivery.
The Ferrari 126CK Formula One car solved this, though, with what we now call the hot V, where the turbochargers are placed inside the valley of the engine. This does a few things. It allows for a more compact engine profile, but more importantly, it shortens the travel distance the exhaust gases have to go before they reach the turbos. It also keeps the turbos in a warmer part of the engine bay, and the intake manifolds in a cooler part, both of which increase each component’s efficiency. The result is boost on tap and the effective elimination of turbo lag.
Apple TV paid a visit to San Diego Comic-Con, hosting a two-hour panel and revealing new trailers for “Dark Matter,” “Neuromancer,” and the loosely toy-based “Matchbox The Movie.”
Just like any major media company that streams movies and TV shows, Apple held a lengthy two-hour panel at San Diego Comic-Con. The panels are usually an opportunity for fans to see stars talk about past and upcoming projects, as well as the reveal of new trailers for inbound releases.
As part of Saturday’s panel, Apple introduced a trio of new trailers for two shows and a movie.
Hall H was given the first look at a new Apple Original Film based on a Mattel toy franchise. Coming from Skydance Media and Mattel Studios, “Matchbox The Movie” stars John Cena, Sam Richardson, and Jessica Biel, and takes an unusual direction.
While the usual expectation would be a very toy-focused approach, the film instead seems more like an homage to “The Fast and The Furious.” The toys do still appear in the film, though.
Cena stars as an undercover CIA agent who returns to a small town and teams up with a group of his childhood friends. Cue an international pursuit to save the world with lots of vehicular stunts.
“Matchbox The Movie” will air on Apple TV on October 9.
AppleInsider first heard about “Neuromancer,” based on the William Gibson novels, in February 2024. More than two years later, there’s a trailer for the show.
A ten-episode series, it stars Callum Turner, who made a surprise virtual appearance for the panel. It also counts Briana Middleton, Mark Strong, Joseph Lee, Peter Sarsgaard and Clemence Poesy in its cast.
The show follows top-tier hacker Case, who lands in trouble involving high-stakes crime and espionage with assassin partner Molly, and a heist on a corporate dynasty.
Produced by Paramount Television and Anonymous Content, “Neuromancer” will premiere on Apple TV with two episodes on July 22, 2027, followed by one episode a week until March 19.
Apple offered a sneak peek of the second season of “Dark Matter” in April, and continued the charge with a full trailer at Comic-Con.
Based on the novel by Black Crouch, the first season had physicist-professor Jason Dessen be abducted and taken to an alternate version of his life, and followed his attempts to return back home. The second season has Dessen getting used to a quiet life in a seemingly safe world, until they are forced to run once again.
Starring Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Connelly, the cast also includes Alice Braga, Jimmi Simpson, Oakes Fedley, Amanda Brugel, and Dayo Okeniyi.
This time, there will also be “Dark Matter: The Official Podcast” accompanying the show. Author Crouch and executive producer Jacquelyn Ben-Zekry will discuss the show’s biggest moments, the creative process, and the science behind the multiverse.
Produced by Sony Pictures Television, “Dark Matter” will premiere on Apple TV from August 28, 2026, with one episode a week released until October 30.
I’ve had very few problems with any inflatable sleeping pad I’ve tested. Some have lost air, but I’ve never had one deflate completely (knock on wood). That said, there are some tricks to getting the best night’s sleep and having a pleasant trip.
Don’t inflate your pad with your mouth: For one thing, some of these pads are huge, and it’s just a pain, but also your breath is warm and moist and you’re injecting into nylon, which is a recipe for mildew and mold. This worry may be somewhat overblown—a few people have cut open pads they’ve inflated by mouth for years and found no sign of mold—but considering what a pain it is to do anyway, it seems easier to just avoid it. Most manufacturers include some kind of pump sack these days, which makes quick work of inflating your pad. There are also motorized pumps that only weigh an ounce or two, like the Flextail pump.
Don’t over-inflate: Insulated sleeping pads work by putting air and material between you and the cold ground, but that doesn’t mean you need to inflate it until it’s taut. It varies by pad. I generally find that the best method is to inflate it taut, and then start to let out air, lying down to test it until you get to where it feels comfortable. The downside to this method is that your pad isn’t that thick and you’re more likely to bottom out if you let out too much air. I find this isn’t much of an issue for stomach or back sleepers, but if you’re a side sleeper it might take some time to find the sweet spot between comfort and warmth.
Carry a patch kit: Most sleeping pads these days include a patch kit. I rarely bring these kits and instead carry a small roll of Tenacious Tape ($6), which will solve rips and tears in everything from sleeping pads to tents. Make sure to test a small piece of tape on your pad beforehand to make sure the tape sticks, and bring an alcohol wipe to clean the affected area.
Women need higher R-value pads: Women generally have lower body mass than men, which means women should add roughly 1 R-value to get the same amount of insulation in the same situation. (I also recommend upping the R-value if you’re a cold sleeper in general.)
Sleeping bag ratings assume R5 pads: Most temp ratings you see on sleeping bags are true only if you’re using a sleeping pad with an R-value of 5 or higher (they also assume you’re wearing a base layer). If your pad is less, you will need to adjust your sleeping bag temp rating accordingly. For example, using your 30 degree quilt with a R4 pad will likely leave you cold if you encounter freezing temps. In that situation you’d want to either up the R-value of the pad, or bring a warmer sleeping bag.
Weekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
Big Money Is Entering XRP
Grayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
Sail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
Turtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
Unregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
New Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
Johnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
Ethics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
Watch Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley discuss the future of surveillance at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026
Shanghai science forum photos show China’s AI and robotics advances in rivalry with US
Circle’s President Sold Over 360,000 Shares, The Filings Explain Why
Subway Sandwich Computers Get a Second Life as Gaming Machines
2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
The Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
How To Use Claude’s Reflect Dashboard And Learn When It’s Time To Touch Grass
The 35 Best Board Games for Family Game Night
Stephen Colbert Returns to Social Media After Late Show End
Andrew Cuomo joins OKX board as crypto exchange expands in U.S.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login