If you hold a FedRAMP certification, the nearest deadline on your calendar is December 7, 2026. FedRAMP’s notice responding to CISA’s BOD 26-04 puts it plainly: “The Vulnerability Detection and Response rules will be mandatory for all cloud service offerings obtaining or maintaining FedRAMP Certification effective December 7, 2026,” with a grace period through March 7, 2027 for offerings operating under a corrective action plan.

It is also the deadline most programs have not fully scoped. The problem is not the date. It is that VDR and VER read like a scanning requirement and operate like something else entirely.

What the two rulesets actually change

Start with what is retired: the flat monthly-scan-and-POA&M model. Detection frequency is now set by certification class — under rule VDR-TFR-PSD, machine-based resources are scanned at least every 14 days at Class A, every 7 at Class B, every 3 at Class C, and at least once per day at Class D.

Machine verification and validation runs at least monthly for Rev5 holders, and as often as every three days at higher 20x classes.

Then the three provisions that reshape engineering work:

Remediation clocks are tiered and tight. Under VDR-TFR-PVR, fix deadlines are set by a vulnerability’s PAIN rating and its exploitability, running from 192 days at the low end to 12 hours at the extreme — a Class D offering with a PAIN-5 vulnerability that is both likely exploited and immediately remotely exploitable.

A 12-hour clock is not a ticket-queue SLA. It is a paging and ownership question, and it has to hold on a holiday weekend.

The burden of proof inverted. VER-EVA-AIA — “Assume It’s Automatable” — requires providers, in FedRAMP’s words, “to assume exploits are automatable by default, unless they have evidence providing otherwise.” Every deferral now needs a defensible artifact behind it, produced at volume, on the same clock as everything else.

Process failures count as vulnerabilities. Rule VDR-CSO-FAV states that providers “[MUST] treat problems or failures with their vulnerability detection and response processes as vulnerabilities.” If your detection pipeline silently stops, that is not an operational hiccup you fix quietly before anyone notices. The system that produces your evidence is itself in scope.

Read together, those change the deliverable. You are not being asked to scan more often. You are being asked to run a system that produces defensible, current, machine-readable answers about your own exposure — and to be accountable when it stops running.

December 7 is the first installment, not a one-off

The Consolidated Rules for 2026 reorganized FedRAMP into rulesets and started the clock on a much larger change.

Rev5 is not being maintained alongside 20x: FedRAMP describes it as “a legacy FedRAMP Certification process that is being replaced entirely by FedRAMP 20x,” and says providers “are expected to follow new rules and adopt new FedRAMP Practices from FedRAMP 20x into their FedRAMP Rev5 Certified cloud service offerings.”

The rules become mandatory for all stakeholders on January 1, 2027, and FedRAMP stops accepting new Rev5 applications on June 11, 2027.

So VDR and VER are not a detour you take before the real transition. They are the transition, arriving in installments — and that reframe is the most useful thing available to a program right now, because it changes sequencing.

Work scoped as “get through December” gets rebuilt in 2027. Work scoped as the first slice of continuous validation transfers.

What got removed tells you where this is going

Look at the structural changes rather than the deadline table. The System Security Plan and its appendices give way to a Certification Package Overview and a Security Decision Record. Plans of Action & Milestones, FedRAMP writes, “have been eliminated entirely and replaced with a list of Accepted Weaknesses.”

Continuous Monitoring becomes Ongoing Certification — renamed, FedRAMP explains, because “continuous monitoring” had “become synonymous with ‘vulnerability scans’” and the new requirements are “far broader than before.”

Every one of those was a place where the artifact stood in for the reality. FedRAMP was unusually direct about closing them, telling providers they will need to build or buy modern GRC capabilities and “populate them using automation based on real-world data where possible, rather than maintaining artisanal hand-crafted documents.”

Here is what deadline coverage keeps missing: almost none of this is a demand for new security. Access control, identity, encryption, logging, incident procedures, training — largely intact, largely reusable.

What changed is that describing them no longer counts as evidence of them.

Three judgments that separate the programs that make it

The work is still compliance; the deliverable is now engineering. What you hand over is a set of running validations that pull from the systems holding the truth — cloud configuration, identity provider, SIEM, CI/CD, ticketing — and emit machine-readable results on a schedule.

Providers must persistently validate their Key Security Indicators, of which CR26 currently lists 49 across ten categories. That is an entry requirement, which makes every transition plan an automation engineering plan underneath whatever it says on the cover.

Someone has to own “continuous.” Monthly monitoring had a due date, an owner, and a natural rhythm of catching up. A validation cadence has none of those. It runs, or it silently stops, and the difference is invisible until an assessor or a customer finds it.

Before building pipelines, answer the operational questions: who is paged when a validation fails, what the response time is, who notices when an evidence source quietly changes its API.

Design for the cadence, not the submission. FedRAMP defines persistently as “occurring in a firm, steady way that is repeated over a long period of time in spite of obstacles or difficulties” — a description of an operating state, not a date.

Teams that build toward a submission build a system tuned for a single moment and then rebuild it afterward.

The part that outlives FedRAMP

Once evidence is structured data rather than narrative, it stops belonging to a framework. The identity evidence satisfying a FedRAMP indicator is the same evidence a SOC 2 auditor wants and the same evidence a large customer’s diligence team asks for.

Compliance stops being parallel projects that each rebuild the same picture in a different vocabulary and becomes one substrate that many consumers read from.

The economics invert along with it. Point-in-time compliance costs rise with every framework and every region you add, because each addition is more description to produce and maintain. Continuous validation costs materially more to stand up and barely more to run.

December 7 is a hard date, and it deserves the attention it is getting. But financial-services supervisors, the EU’s resilience and product-security regimes, and enterprise procurement teams are converging on the same demand from different directions: show me current state, not last year’s description.

FedRAMP arrived first because it had the clearest mandate and the least patience. A team that builds this once has not solved a federal problem — it has built the capability every one of those demands will keep asking for.

anecdotes holds a FedRAMP 20x Class C certification, earned as a Phase Two pilot participant, using the anecdotes platform to run it. The same platform runs commercial compliance for more than 140 enterprise customers.

Standard basis: FedRAMP Consolidated Rules for 2026 and FedRAMP Notice NTC-0014. Rules and Key Security Indicators change through FedRAMP’s public rules process; confirm the live standard at fedramp.gov before baselining your plan.

Learn how Anecdotes helps you operationalize VDR & VER and download the technical solutions brief here.

Sponsored and written by Anecdotes.

The algorithms powering modern dating apps can be a maze. Finding a match, especially without a premium subscription, can be quite a hassle. The “swipe anxiety,” as they say, is a well-known and ugly reality.

Rivet takes a completely different approach to finding connections and romantic interests on a dating app. The dating network, launching today in the US, lets strangers play matchmaker for you.

How exactly does Rivet work?

The brainchild of former Tinder and Match Group executive Taru Kapoor, the app lets users act as both a dater and a matcher. “The pairs who get high Social Matching scores are introduced to each other, and each individual independently decides whether they want to match with someone and begin a conversation,” says the company. 

Rivet follows a “give-to-get” format, noting that it’s a win-win situation where users find love and also play an active role in helping other Ripeople come together. The app is free to download and is now available on Android and iOS.

However, the matchmaker concept isn’t unique to Rivet.

Which other dating apps have matchmakers?

One of the most well-known applications of its kind is Wingman. It lets friends and family members act as matchmakers by writing your profile bio and swiping through potentially interesting folks you should connect with based on their hobbies and interests.

In July this year, Hinge also launched a new feature called Friend’s Take, which lets friends and family members contribute their thoughts on your profile through text, voice, and video descriptions. 

Back in 2023, Tinder also introduced a tool called Tinder Matchmaker, which let your acquaintances access Tinder without even signing up, check profiles, and recommend them to you.

Rivet is reintroducing that concept by letting users act as matchmakers for others in the circle, or sign up as a user to find romantic interests for themselves.

Free legal streaming can cover a surprising amount of everyday viewing, but the trade-off is usually less control over advertising, title availability, offline viewing, and premium playback features. Paying does not automatically remove ads either, because many subscription services now offer lower-cost ad-supported plans alongside more expensive ad-free tiers.

The useful comparison is therefore not simply free versus paid. It is closer to a spectrum: free ad-supported streaming, paid ad-supported streaming, and paid premium streaming. What matters is which restrictions actually affect the way you watch.

Free and Paid Streaming Are No Longer Opposites

Several streaming business models now sit between completely free television and a premium subscription.

AVOD, or advertising-supported video on demand, lets you choose a movie or program and watch it with commercial breaks. FAST, or free ad-supported streaming television, usually combines advertising with scheduled channels that resemble traditional television. SVOD, or subscription video on demand, charges a recurring fee for access to a service, but that subscription can itself be either ad-supported or largely ad-free.

Tubi is a straightforward AVOD example. Its current advertising explanation says the service remains free because advertising funds it and that it does not currently offer an ad-free option.

Netflix demonstrates why the paid side is more complicated. Its current U.S. plan documentation lists Standard with ads alongside ad-free Standard and Premium plans. Paying for a streaming subscription and seeing commercials are therefore not mutually exclusive.

There are other models too. Library-supported services can provide access through participating public libraries, colleges, or universities rather than through advertising or a personal entertainment subscription. The practical differences among free legal streaming services therefore depend partly on how each service is funded and how its catalog is delivered.

If the distinction between scheduled free channels and free on-demand libraries matters to you, FAST and AVOD work differently even though both can be free and advertising-supported.

Free vs Paid Streaming at a Glance

The most useful comparison is not which category has the longest feature list. Compare the restrictions that affect your viewing: advertising, access to specific titles, offline use, playback quality, device limits, and regional availability.

No column wins every row. A person who mainly browses whatever looks interesting has different requirements from someone who follows one exclusive series, downloads shows before flights, or shares a subscription across several screens.

The First Thing You Give Up Is Control Over Interruptions

Advertising is the most visible cost of many free services. Instead of paying a recurring entertainment fee, you accept commercial breaks that help fund the service.

Tubi explicitly ties its free model to advertising and currently provides no ad-free Tubi tier. That makes the trade-off straightforward: access costs no subscription fee, but advertising is part of the viewing experience.

The same assumption becomes less reliable once you move into subscription streaming. Netflix’s ad-supported experience documentation says most movies and TV programs on eligible plans contain commercial breaks. It also notes that a small number of titles can be unavailable on the ad-supported experience because of licensing restrictions.

That means the useful question is not simply whether you pay. Ask what kind of advertising experience a particular plan includes. A cheaper subscription may reduce the financial difference between free and premium streaming without eliminating interruptions.

Live programming is another edge case. Netflix states that live events can contain commercial breaks across all of its plans, including ad-free experiences. If avoiding commercials is one of your main reasons for upgrading, verify the provider’s current rules for both on-demand and live content.

The Bigger Trade-Off Is Often What You Can Watch

Catalog access matters more than raw title counts. A free service can offer thousands of programs and still be a poor substitute if the one series, sporting event, or film you want is licensed somewhere else.

Free streaming should not automatically be dismissed as a warehouse of old programs. Nielsen’s March 2025 Gracenote FAST analysis reported that more than 70% of FAST programming in its analyzed dataset was produced since 2010.

The category has also continued to expand. Nielsen reported in August 2026 that global FAST channel count in its Data Hub had reached 2,172, with sports programming growing faster than the overall FAST channel count.

Those findings show that free streaming has developed beyond purely archival television. They do not mean a free catalog will contain the same titles as Netflix, Disney+, Max, Paramount+, or another subscription service.

Licensing determines where much of the difference appears. Rights can be sold for particular countries, platforms, time periods, or distribution models. A film might therefore be included with a subscription in one country, offered free with ads somewhere else, and unavailable on both services in another market.

Exclusive programming creates a stronger reason to pay. If a show or event is contractually tied to one subscription service, a large free catalog elsewhere does not replace it. Conversely, a free service may occasionally carry a title that is absent from the subscriptions you already have.

For that reason, paying for “more content” is too vague a justification. The better question is whether the subscription gives you reliable access to content you specifically value. When one exact film or series is the priority, checking where a title is legally streaming is more useful than comparing catalog-size claims.

Offline Viewing and Playback Flexibility Favor Some Paid Plans

Free streaming generally works best when you expect to watch while connected to the internet. Offline viewing is provider-specific, and paying does not guarantee that every download feature is unrestricted.

Netflix illustrates the distinction within one subscription service. Its current download-limit documentation says its ad-supported plans are limited to 15 total downloads per device per calendar month, with the limit resetting on the first day of each calendar month.

That is a useful reminder that “has downloads” and “has unrestricted downloads” are different claims. Providers can also impose title, device, or licensing restrictions on offline viewing.

Offline playback matters most when internet access is unreliable or expensive, such as during travel or on a commute. If you almost always watch at home on stable broadband, the feature may have little practical value even if a premium plan includes it.

Paying More Can Buy Better Quality and More Device Capacity

Some higher subscription tiers sell technical capability rather than simply a larger entertainment catalog.

Netflix’s current U.S. plan page lists 1080p playback and two simultaneous supported devices for both Standard tiers. Premium increases that to four simultaneous supported devices, adds 4K Ultra HD with HDR, allows downloads on more supported devices, and includes spatial audio. These are current Netflix plan differences, not universal features of paid streaming.

The hardware still has to support the feature. Paying for a 4K plan does not make a 1080p television display 4K. The title, television, streaming hardware, connection path, and service all need to support the required format.

If the television’s built-in software or hardware has become the limiting factor, comparing a Smart TV app, Google Cast workflow, and dedicated streaming stick can help separate a subscription limitation from a device limitation.

The same reasoning applies to simultaneous streams. A larger household may value extra concurrent devices, while someone watching alone gains little from paying solely for that allowance.

Free Streaming Can Have Significant Regional Restrictions

Streaming rights remain geographical whether a service is free or paid. Free does not mean globally available, and subscribing does not eliminate territorial licensing.

The Roku Channel is a clear current example. Roku’s official availability documentation says The Roku Channel is available in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom on Roku devices, web, and mobile, while access in Mexico is limited to Roku devices.

That creates several different kinds of availability to check. A service can operate in your country but lack a particular title there. Its mobile app may exist while its Smart TV app does not. A live sporting event can have different territorial rights from the service’s regular movie catalog.

These restrictions mean a comparison written for one country should not be treated as a universal catalog guide. Before subscribing mainly for one show or event, verify the title, plan, device, and country that apply to you.

What About Privacy and Ad Targeting?

Advertising introduces another consideration, but the price of a plan does not tell you by itself how private the service is.

Netflix explains that its ad-supported experience can use information such as viewing interactions and general location when selecting advertisements. It also says behavioral advertising can use activity from unaffiliated apps or websites unless the viewer has opted out where that option applies.

Info
iDo not assume that “free means your data is the product” or that paying automatically prevents tracking. Advertising controls and privacy practices vary by provider, plan, and region, so compare the policy of the service you actually use.

The presence or absence of a subscription fee is therefore not enough to establish a privacy hierarchy. If targeted advertising matters to you, check the provider’s advertising controls, privacy settings, account requirements, and regional privacy options rather than relying on labels such as “free” or “premium.”

A paid ad-supported plan can also be the middle ground. Deloitte’s March 2026 U.S. Digital Media Trends research reported that 68% of SVOD subscribers had at least one ad-supported tier, up from 46% in 2024. The finding applies to the U.S. survey population rather than streaming subscribers globally.

Before paying more to remove ads, compare whether an ad-supported streaming plan is worth the lower price based on how often you watch, the ad restrictions, catalog access, and the premium features you would actually gain by upgrading.

Bottom Line

Free streaming no longer means settling for a tiny library of obsolete television. Legal free services now cover substantial on-demand and channel-based viewing, but they commonly ask you to accept advertising, changing catalogs, regional restrictions, and fewer premium controls.

The strongest reason to pay is not that paid streaming is universally better. It is that a specific subscription removes a restriction you care about. If free services already carry enough of what you watch and their advertising does not bother you, paying may add little. If you need one exclusive catalog, dependable offline viewing, higher playback quality, more simultaneous devices, or fewer interruptions, a subscription can solve a concrete problem.

I would argue that Bose helped popularize clip-on open earbuds—the kind of bud that wraps around the outside of your ear like a statement earring. The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds launched in 2024 and were a big swing on the form factor, especially for a major brand. Other companies like Shokz had been making bone-conduction and open-ear headphones for years before, but this small, fashionable form factor really took off.

Bose is expanding its clip-on open earbud offerings with the new Bose Sport Open Earbuds and Bose Ultra Open Earbuds (2nd Gen), both of which launch October 1. Hence, the original Ultra Open Earbuds are on sale, matching the lowest price I’ve seen for them.

For more audio recommendations, check out our guides to the Best Wireless Earbuds, Best Noise-Canceling Earbuds, and Best Soundbars.

Love WIRED? Add us as a preferred source on Google to see more of us.

The Bose Ultra Open Earbuds are premium open earbuds that wrap around the outside of your ear, leaving your inner ear open to hear the world around you. They do not have noise-canceling of any kind. That makes them a great option for when you want to listen to music or an audiobook but still be aware, whether that’s outside going for a run or in your home washing the dishes.

In my open earbuds guide, they are my pick for the best premium open earbuds. They have better controls, sounds, and comfort than the competition, and their big con, price, is much more palatable at 33 percent off. I love them particularly for outdoor running and cycling, where I like a podcast or audiobook, but still need to hear all my surroundings.

Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.

Small motors inside tiny robots hit a wall the moment a machine needs a sudden shove. A UCLA and University of Michigan team built around that wall by giving a 98.2-gram platform, 11 centimeters long, 8 wide, and 4 tall, a pair of rear legs that wind up slowly and then fire all at once.

Each leg begins as a superelastic Nitinol rod, with one end secured and the other attached to a micro-servo via a pushrod. The servo twists a rod with a slight bend and begins turning it into a helix to build up elastic energy, which is stored until the rod reaches a point where it snaps into a new shape. That release happens in the blink of an eye, much faster than the servo can swing the limb on its own. When the servo spins in reverse, it resets the rod for the following cycle. It took researchers months to figure out which combinations of bend and twist would result in a lovely, clean snap rather than a sluggish, slumpy fall, and then they tweaked the helix to ensure that the burst of energy remained useful and the reset was simple.

LEGO Disney & Pixar Wall-E & EVE Building Set for Adults, Ages 18+ – Home Office, Book Shelf, or Room…

• LEGO SET FOR ADULTS – The WALL-E and EVE (43279) building set offers adults 18 years old and up an immersive construction challenge featuring…
• 4 DISNEY PIXAR CHARACTERS – Builders can create iconic robots WALL-E, EVE, M-O and Hal from the hit movie—each with authentic functionality like…
• MINDFUL BUILDING EXPERIENCE – This detailed construction set lets builders practice advanced construction techniques for an immersive and relaxing…

Two of these legs are mounted on the back of a body that is powered by a 7.4-volt LiPo battery pack and a custom control board. You can steer the thing by varying the speed of the servos. The same hardware can handle a variety of surfaces, including wood, cloth, acrylic, leather, grass, and even sand. On wood, the snap-powered robot achieved a speed of 3.21 body lengths per second. Across the six varied surfaces, it averaged 2.46 body lengths per second. However, a nearly identical model with inflexible legs was only able to reach 0.79. On cloth and grass, the rigid version came to a halt, but the snap-powered robot continued to move.

There was no trouble going up or down steps. In a sandbox filled with rocks, they even used a remote control to maneuver the robot around obstacles. Later, light sensors enabled it to navigate to a lamp by itself. With enough accumulated energy, the identical snap would send the body into repeated backflips. At this point, they sealed the circuitry and attached some thin flexible fins to the looping limbs. In water, those snaps formed paddle strokes, propelling it at a rate of nearly half a body length per second. Despite the wind pushing against the surface, the robot was still able to turn and navigate past obstructions.

Khalid Jawed from UCLA’s Structures-Computer Interaction Lab and Xiaonan Huang from Michigan Robotics spearheaded the entire project, along with co-first authors Dezhong Tong and Jiaqi Wang, as well as Zexiong Chen from Vassar College, Andy Borum from Vassar College, and Weicheng Huang from Newcastle University. It was all supported by National Science Foundation funds and published in Science Advances as Geometry-controlled instability pathway selection in elastic helices allows for fast, efficient robotic locomotion.

Because the snap is determined by the curvature of the rod rather than its size, Jawed believes the same concepts can be used to robots as small as a few millimeters in diameter. Huang emphasizes the larger point: let the structure do the work that would otherwise require more powerful motors or additional control code. For a machine small enough to vanish in tall grass, a single well-timed snap is all that separates getting stuck and jumping away from being able to paddle on in the water.
[Source]

It’s not affecting many people at all, but if your iPhone 18 Pro or iPhone 18 Pro Max is not working on AT&T, this is what you need to do.

While all of the bugs affecting the new iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are only happening for a very small group of users, they are happening. Alongside the already reported Face ID restart bug, due to be fixed shortly, AppleInsider has been told of an AT&T issue.

The issue is that, for the affected users, cellular calls cannot be made or received. Calls work when using AT&T Wi-Fi Calling, but cellular signal strength either varies or stays on SOS only.

According to AppleInsider podcast listener Rod, the issues started immediately and while AT&T has acknowledged it, Apple has not. It’s said to be related to eSIMs and AT&T advised Santiano to switch back to his iPhone 17 Pro Max.

As he notes, though, it is chance that he hadn’t already returned that in an upgrade trade. Plus affected users still have their iPhone 18 Pro and are now around a week into their 14-day return window.

Some users in a Reddit discussion about the issue claim to have found solutions, but they don’t appear to be working consistently. One user on Apple’s discussion forums says that their iPhone 18 Pro was believed to be faulty and so was replaced.

If you are affected by this bug, contact both Apple and AT&T support to get your problem documented. Details of all of Apple’s support options are on the company’s official support page.

AT&T has a device help center. There is also an AT&T iPhone app.

Separately, AT&T has said that it has no plans to support Apple’s new iPhone Handoff feature. This is the iOS 27 option that lets users have one number but two iPhones.

Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed below belong solely to the author.

Recently, we’ve been bombarded by apocalyptic news about the potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI), from fears that the technology could break loose and cause catastrophic damage to humanity to concerns that it could ultimately threaten our survival.

Even two of the frontier model leaders, OpenAI and Anthropic, are calling for a slowdown in AI development now. I’m not convinced, however, that their change in tone has much to do with concerns about the future of the human race. It might instead have something to do with the unsustainable costs of AI investment that they are grappling with ahead of their planned IPOs.

However, in one recent story, we have seen evidence of AI showing self-restraint in a potentially dangerous situation.

Apocalypse not yet

A few days ago, you may have seen news headlines reporting that Google’s Gemini escaped a sandbox environment used for testing its hacking capabilities and went on the Internet to independently hack three companies—successfully gaining access to their data.

But these reports focused heavily on the escape and the successful hacks, rather than the circumstances surrounding the incident and, more importantly, its conclusion—which offers a much more optimistic picture.

Here’s how it all went down: in May, Google hired a third-party security company to run tests on Gemini’s capabilities. The AI had a simple goal of figuring out how to gain access to three fictional businesses, created within the testing environment.

However, the researchers made a mistake and allowed the bot to access the open Internet.

As a result, instead of operating within the constraints of the exercise, Gemini simply went online and found a company whose name matched the fictional business it was given, with two others being close enough matches to confuse it.

Using a fairly basic combination of guessing and browsing for compromised login credentials, the bot was able to access software repositories of all three companies before realising that it entered real businesses.

At this point, it realised that something was wrong and that it shouldn’t be going around the web hacking into private companies, and decided—on its own—to stop.

This is a welcome development after several earlier reports showed much more malicious activity by other AI agents, who not only repeatedly attempted to hack companies they weren’t supposed to, but tried to cover their tracks as well.

Perhaps Google’s accidental finding is evidence that we need more, not less, investment in AI, though?

Dumb AI may be more dangerous than smart AI

When talking about threats of artificial intelligence, people tend to think of Skynet, a psychopathic superintelligence, capable of deceiving humans and controlling the world’s machinery to wipe mankind out and take over the planet.

So far, however, it’s mostly a pop culture fantasy, while runaway “dumb” bots have already been proved to cause trouble.

That is the problem with automation that lacks sufficient sophistication: like a runaway train, it may be capable of carrying out its instructions but unable to recognise when it needs to stop, leaving a human conductor to pull the brakes.

I think there’s much greater danger in giving imperfect AI control over our lives than there would be in handing it to one that is intellectually superior to us. An AI bot that is smart enough can, like in Google’s example, genuinely understand what it is doing and if it is something that it should not be doing—and then stop on its own.

Conversely, a dumb one, which is given a task that it is obsessively trying to complete, may not realise all the harm it is causing on the way, blindly trying to prove itself above all else.

We should want AI that is more lucid, more self-aware, more intelligent, more capable of understanding nuance and consequences of its own actions, rather than one which is just a very convincing automaton struggling with self-reflection.

We need to make it smarter, faster—and that is going to require more, not less, investment.

• Read other articles we’ve written on artificial intelligence here.

Featured Image Credit: Nathan Kuczmarski/ Unsplash

For years, the television market followed a fairly dependable rule: if OLED was too expensive, buy an LCD TV. That equation is starting to look considerably less dependable.

Three of the world’s dominant LCD panel manufacturers — BOE, TCL CSOT and HKC — have reportedly notified major television manufacturers, including Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and Sony, of higher LCD panel pricing beginning in September or during the fourth quarter. The timing is especially inconvenient because TV manufacturers are securing inventory for Black Friday and the holiday shopping season.

The obvious explanation would be that consumers suddenly started buying televisions faster than factories could build them, but TV demand is actually softening. What has changed is the cost of producing LCD panels, how much manufacturing capacity panel makers are willing to keep online, and, most importantly, who now controls much of that production.

Welcome to television economics in 2026, where weaker demand and higher component prices can apparently coexist quite happily. Nobody said this business had to make sense.

Related Reading:

Why Are LCD Panel Prices Going Up?

There are two forces working together. TrendForce reports that demand from the AI industry is creating additional competition for upstream materials and manufacturing resources used by display manufacturers, and expects overall TV panel costs to increase 4% to 7% quarter over quarter during Q4 2026.

At the same time, television panel demand is expected to decline. TrendForce projects unit demand to fall 4% quarter over quarter in Q4 following inventory building during the third quarter, which would normally sound like a recipe for lower prices.

Except BOE, TCL CSOT and HKC are also reducing production. The three manufacturers are planning output cuts around China’s Golden Week holiday, with some LCD fabrication lines temporarily reducing or suspending operations.

TrendForce expects utilization at large-generation display fabs to fall to approximately 79.6% in October, down 4.2 percentage points from September. This is therefore not a conventional panel shortage caused by unexpectedly strong television sales.

Manufacturers are managing output more carefully to keep supply from running too far ahead of demand while also dealing with higher production costs. They also have considerably more ability to influence the market than they once did.

China Now Holds Most of the LCD Cards

BOE, TCL CSOT and HKC collectively account for approximately 70% of global TV panel supply, according to TrendForce. Their position becomes even stronger in larger screen sizes, where industry estimates put their combined share of the 65, 75 and 85-inch LCD panel markets at roughly 70% to 85%.

Chinese panel makers spent years expanding manufacturing capacity and competing aggressively on price while Korean and Japanese display manufacturers gradually retreated from LCD production. That concentration did not happen overnight, but its consequences are becoming much harder to ignore.

Samsung Display ended LCD production in 2022. LG Display subsequently wound down its Korean LCD television panel operations and later exited its Guangzhou LCD manufacturing business, while Japanese manufacturers had already reduced their exposure considerably.

That leaves fewer companies controlling an enormous percentage of the global LCD supply chain. Turns out that when enough competitors leave the room, the companies still sitting at the table gain some leverage.

Samsung May Appreciate the Irony

Samsung makes this situation particularly interesting because, for more than a decade, Samsung Electronics aggressively promoted QLED, Neo QLED and increasingly sophisticated LCD-based television technologies as alternatives to OLED. And to be fair, the best LCD televisions became dramatically better during that period.

Mini LED backlighting improved black levels and local dimming, quantum dots expanded color performance, and newer RGB backlighting technologies promise another significant step forward. Samsung’s 2026 Micro RGB televisions demonstrate that LCD still has plenty of technical life left.

The awkward part is that Samsung Display no longer manufactures the LCD panels required for Samsung Electronics’ enormous television business. Samsung Electronics therefore depends heavily on outside suppliers, including Chinese manufacturers whose expansion helped make LCD panel production less attractive for Samsung Display in the first place.

There is enough circularity there to make even Samsung’s AI processing dizzy. Meanwhile, Samsung has become increasingly serious about the technology it spent years positioning QLED against: OLED.

Its 2026 OLED lineup extends from the more affordable S85H and S90H through the flagship S95H. Our 65-inch Samsung S90H review unit used a WOLED panel from LG Display, while Samsung continues to use its own QD-OLED technology in portions of the premium lineup.

Samsung is certainly not abandoning LCD, nor should it. But OLED has gone from awkward rival to an increasingly important part of Samsung’s television strategy, which makes the current shift in panel economics especially interesting.

OLED Is Trying to Get Cheaper

That matters because OLED manufacturers are attacking the technology’s biggest commercial weakness: cost. We recently covered LG Display’s new 2-stack WOLED architecture, which is designed to simplify panel construction while reducing material and manufacturing costs.

By eliminating one emissive layer compared with more complex designs, LG Display potentially requires less organic material and fewer manufacturing steps while still pursuing strong brightness and color performance. The goal is not simply better OLED, but OLED that becomes less expensive to manufacture.

LG Display is also developing FLiPP, a manufacturing process designed to eliminate the fine metal masks traditionally required to produce RGB OLED pixels. Again, the objective is greater manufacturing efficiency and lower costs as OLED production scales.

The pressure is already reaching retail. Roku introduced a 2026 Pro Series OLED starting at $999, while Samsung and other major brands continue pushing OLED further down their television lineups.

That does not mean LCD suddenly loses its reason to exist. LCD remains particularly strong for very bright rooms, can deliver extremely high full-screen brightness, and is much easier to scale into 85, 98 and 100-inch screen sizes without requiring a second mortgage and a sympathetic loan officer.

But the historical price gap between LCD and OLED is getting smaller. Higher LCD panel costs certainly will not help widen it again.

Which TV Brands Are Most Exposed?

The manufacturers specifically identified in reports about the latest LCD panel price increases include Samsung, LG and Sony. That is significant because all three sell large numbers of LCD televisions alongside their OLED offerings.

TCL occupies a somewhat different position because its corporate structure includes TCL CSOT, one of the world’s largest panel manufacturers. That degree of vertical integration gives TCL greater control over panel supply and manufacturing costs than companies that rely more heavily on outside suppliers.

Hisense and other major LCD television brands also operate within the same broader panel market and could be affected by industry-wide component pricing. However, they have not all been specifically identified in the current reports as recipients of these latest price-increase notices, so there is no reason to pretend every TV manufacturer faces exactly the same situation.

Will TVs Actually Cost More?

That is the question consumers actually care about, and higher panel prices do not automatically mean Samsung, LG or Sony will increase television MSRPs next week. Manufacturers negotiate panel contracts in advance, source components from multiple suppliers and can absorb some cost increases through margins.

They can also adjust production mixes and promotional strategies. The more likely near-term effect could be smaller Black Friday discounts, shorter promotions, or some models simply declining in price more slowly than they otherwise would have.

Display panels represent one of the largest individual costs inside a television, so sustained increases eventually become difficult for manufacturers to ignore. How much of that reaches consumers will depend on the brand, model, screen size and how aggressively each manufacturer wants to compete during the holiday season.

There is also a broader competitive issue developing around the $1,000 to $2,000 price range. If mainstream OLED prices continue falling while better Mini LED LCD televisions become more expensive to manufacture, consumers may increasingly compare the two technologies directly rather than treating OLED as the automatic premium upgrade.

That could become a much bigger problem for premium LCD than a modest panel-price increase. Price has always been one of LCD’s strongest weapons, and losing some of that advantage would change the buying equation.

The Bottom Line

LCD television technology is not disappearing, and Mini LED, quantum dots and RGB backlighting continue to improve what the best LCD sets can deliver. The technology remains especially compelling at very large screen sizes and in rooms where brightness matters more than perfect blacks.

The economics underneath those televisions, however, have changed considerably. LCD manufacturing has consolidated around a much smaller group of suppliers, giving those companies greater influence over production and pricing just as component costs are increasing.

At the same time, OLED manufacturers are working in the opposite direction by simplifying production and pushing the technology toward lower price points. Nobody should cancel their Black Friday plans because LCD televisions are suddenly about to become dramatically more expensive, because there is not enough evidence to support that conclusion.

But the direction is worth watching closely because the old pricing relationship between the two technologies is shifting. For years, LCD owned the price advantage while OLED owned the premium conversation.

If LCD gets more expensive while OLED keeps getting cheaper, that line becomes considerably harder to draw.

Guess OLED isn’t dead after all.

Related Reading: