After first unveiling its new AI-powered laptop, dubbed Googlebook, in May, Google on Monday said the new device is now available for pre-order for $899.

Meant to offer a step up from traditional Chromebooks, Googlebooks run on Android OS with a desktop version of the Chrome browser and other familiar ChromeOS elements. However, the real pull for the new devices is that they’ll prominently feature Gemini’s latest capabilities in a new format: the laptop.

Google is trying to offer a laptop with unique features like an AI-powered cursor, vibe-coded widgets, and support for AI-enhanced dictation. The latter is a feature called Rambler, which cleans up messy, rambling brain dumps into readable text.

The move is a bet that AI, specifically Google’s Gemini, could be enough of a draw to get people to buy a new laptop that bakes in AI instead of running them via desktop apps you install or access through the browser. In addition, the devices could eventually replace Chromebooks, bringing millions of former Chromebook customers to Gemini AI.

On the Googlebook, Google is trying to reinvent the “point-and-click” experience of desktop computing to now include an AI element: the cursor serves as a conduit to Gemini. The company suggests various ways this could be used, like highlighting content on a webpage for Gemini to work with, asking Gemini to see if an email you’ve hovered your cursor over is suspicious, or selecting images and then asking Gemini to visualize them together.

In practice, this feature isn’t very different from Android’s “Circle to Search,” which allows smartphone owners to use gestures like circling, highlighting, or tapping to connect with Google Search, which of course, also includes AI. While it’s a clever way to take advantage of the ways people use their phones, Circle to Search on its own didn’t inspire a mass exodus to Android.

Similarly, Magic Cursor, as the AI pointer is called, won’t likely be a main selling point for the Googlebook, especially now that we have AI agents that can take over your computer and browser to do tasks for you.

Google’s Rambler, however, may be one of the best of the AI features in this upgrade, as it meets a surprisingly useful need. However, this, too, isn’t enough reason to buy a new device, as it feels more like a feature that’s nice to have than a necessity.

Vibe-coding widgets are a minor addition, as well. Other Googlebook features, like Gemini Spark and Gemini Live, also don’t require special, new hardware.

What’s more interesting about the Googlebook is how it’s seemingly part of Google’s longer-term plan to capture a large part of the K-12 market that currently relies on Chromebooks, and push them towards the company’s Gemini AI. There are somewhere around 50 million Chromebooks in schools, used by students and educators, Google has said.

In May, the company told TechCrunch that its current Chromebooks would continue to be supported, though many would become eligible to transition to the new Googlebook experience in the future.

The $899 device will include 12 months of Google AI Pro, which gives you 5TB of cloud storage, Gemini Advanced tools, and 3 months of YouTube Premium, Adobe Photoshop and more. The devices will receive regular updates for up to 10 years, Google said.

Googlebook pre-orders are open now on the Google Store, Best Buy, and other retailers. Devices will hit shelves on October 4 in the U.S., and October 5 in Canada, the U.K., Ireland, France, Germany, and Australia.

Flagship devices in the new range are being built by Acer, ASUS, Dell, HP and Lenovo, with materials like aluminum, magnesium alloy and carbon fiber. They feature up to 2.8K OLED displays, haptic glass trackpads, and backlit keyboards. Under the hood, they’ll run on processors from Intel and Qualcomm paired with dedicated NPUs. Google says the device will offer up to 14 hours of battery life.

from the dysfunction-junction dept

I’ve written a lot about how Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos convinced Republicans to redirect billions in taxpayer money away from future-proof fiber optic upgrades, and toward their low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband networks they’d already planned to deploy. Curious behavior for two extremely-rich gentlemen who both repeatedly claim to loathe subsidies and corporate welfare.

The short version: the billionaires convinced Republicans to retool the $42.5 billion Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program (created by the 2021 infrastructure bill) in a way that weakened oversight standards, eliminated enforcement of stuff like broadband affordability, speed, and equitable deployment, and shoveled taxpayers toward more expensive, slower, less reliable satellite service.

After doing billionaires a giant favor, Republicans proudly claimed they’d “saved taxpayers around $21 billion” in “non-deployment funds.” The problem: Congress specifically earmarked this money for broadband deployment, so states were understandably annoyed at the missed opportunity.

For much of the last year, states and scattered lawmakers have been begging the Trump NTIA to offer guidance on what is going to happen to this $21 billion. Initially I think they hoped they could just pocket or repurpose that money. When they realized they couldn’t get away with it, they announced last week they’d vaguely be opening additional BEAD funding rounds to try and put the money to work.

Former FCC official Gigi Sohn, illustrated how stupid this all is over at a post at LinkedIn:

“After proudly cutting back on BEAD-eligible locations in its “Benefit of the Bargain” and “Best and Final” bidding rounds, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has now decided that part of the money it allegedly “saved” will go back to deploy broadband in the places that it nixed previously.”

But there’s still no meaningful guidance on what any of this means (which is required by law). And the BEAD standards have been so altered and twisted, there’s nothing saying this doesn’t just result in billions more money being funneled to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos for substandard LEO satellite service that’s expensive and increasingly congested (because it wasn’t designed to be a mainstream option).

The bipartisan infrastructure law that created BEAD says that any extra BEAD money left over after physically connecting people must be used to improve broadband maps (which telecoms hate because it highlights market failure), install low-cost connectivity in multiple dwelling units like low income apartment complexes, or support broadband adoption programs. All of which the Trump administration claim are “woke.”

Sohn notes that under the law the Trump NTIA needs to provide clear guidance for the funds. Just ambiguously stating that money can still be maybe used for broadband doesn’t cut it:

“NTIA Administrator Roth promised a Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that she would issue non-deployment guidance this summer. This partial guidance should not serve as a promise kept. The last day of summer is September 22. Tick Tock.”

The annoyance at the Trump NTIA is increasingly bipartisan, as politicians in states like Texas realize this whole program was mired with all sorts of billionaire favoritism, delays, and weird new bureaucratic obstacles that significantly eroded what could have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand affordable, fast broadband.

I think this hasn’t been a bigger scandal (yet) in part because states don’t want to speak out and risk not getting billions in funds. So a lot of folks I see in telecom policy are privately furious or disgusted, but publicly pretending that any of this still makes any coherent sense.

It’s important to remember that Republicans spent all last election season complaining that this BEAD program was a bureaucratic hellscape they were going to immediately fix once in office.

Instead the Trump admin redirected billions to billionaires, eliminated any provisions requiring the broadband be equitably deployed and affordable, hijacked $21. billion for what they clearly hoped would be their own personal use, and created years of additional delays due to corruption and bureaucracy.

Folks like Ezra Klein, who helped Republicans parrot BEAD concerns in 2024, have been nowhere to be found since. In fact none of the “abundance” folks have made a single solitary peep about how badly the opportunity to build much-needed affordable broadband infrastructure has been bungled by Trump Incorporated.

Filed Under: bead, broadband, corruption, digital divide, elon musk, fiber, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, satellite

Europe’s data centers are to be graded on how much energy and water they use, under a rating scheme proposed on Monday by the European Commission.

Any individual site drawing more than 500 kW is covered. What the rating measures is not only consumption but what a data center puts back: heat recovered and reused, clean generation it adds, and how far it can flex its own demand when the grid is under strain.

The argument for taking the time to recover the heat is based on one figure: if about half of the heat that Europe’s data centers currently waste were recovered, it would meet the heating needs of four million households.

“Tripling our data center capacity cannot mean tripling the pressure on our grids, our water and our energy bills,” said Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s executive vice-president for clean, just and competitive transition.

Tripling is not merely hypothetical; it is the stated plan: the EU aims to have three times its current capacity within five to seven years, a goal it frames as a matter of technological independence rather than as part of an energy policy.

In 2024, European data centers used about 68 terawatt-hours of electricity, and the International Energy Agency forecasts this to rise to 114 TWh by 2030 due to AI, at which point the sector will account for more than 3% of all electricity consumed in the region.

It is a delegated regulation and determines what takes place afterward; Parliament and the Council now have two months in which to examine it, and although they can object to the entire regulation, they cannot alter a single line of it.

If it survives that stage, the individual data centers will have their labels applied in 2027, and a review of whether any of it is working will be completed by the end of 2028.

The fact is that having a rating does not mean that requirements are being imposed, since the Commission has separately put forward minimum performance standards for consultation, and it is precisely from that process that a real floor would arise; the deadline for this is 14 December.

The Commission is also carrying out work on a tripartite agreement with the operators, the grid operators and the energy suppliers later this year, after the declaration of intent made in June.

At the moment, the proposal makes data centers visible rather than smaller.

“Digital sovereignty must go hand in hand with energy responsibility,” said energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen.

The M6 update for the Mac Mini arrived not a moment too soon. Not only has it been nearly two years since the last Mac Mini was released, but it’s also become increasingly difficult to find an older M4 Mini for purchase in recent months. In the year of the AI agent, Apple’s Mac Mini has enjoyed a surge in popularity to the point of dwindling supplies and long wait times.

The compact, quiet and affordable Mini with its energy-efficient yet powerful Apple silicon and unified memory has become a popular pick for people looking to run OpenClaw and other local AI agents around the clock. Even at its slightly elevated starting price of $899, the M6 Mini is sure to remain en vogue as a tiny, always-on AI server. The core count ticks up for the CPU, GPU and NPU in going from the M4 to the M6, skipping over the M5 in the process.

If you want to pack more power into the Mac Mini for running demanding creative workloads or larger LLMs, Apple offers two M5 Pro processor upgrades and the ability to stuff the Mini with up to 64GB of RAM. Apple sent me a pair of Mac Minis to test, an M6 model with bumps to the memory and storage and a loaded M5 Pro unit whose price places it in Mac Studio territory. 

Apple Mac Mini specs (as tested)

Josh Goldman/CNET

Even before the latest price hike with the M6 model, the Mac Mini lost its standing earlier this year as Apple’s most affordable Mac computer. It debuted two decades ago at $499 and could be had for $599 for most of its tenure before jumping to $799 earlier this year.

Released this spring, the MacBook Neo became the cheapest Mac at just $699, but it’s based on an A18 Pro processor borrowed from the iPhone. So, the Mac Mini still remains the most affordable Mac computer with a proper M-series processor. At $899, it’s still $400 less than the cheapest MacBook Air. And it beat every MacBook in the race to be the first Mac to get Apple’s new M6 processor.

Meet the M6

The M6 processor is the first of Apple’s M series processors to be fabricated with a 2nm process, which allows for denser circuitry in the same size die. The smaller process usually results in greater efficiency and lets you increase the core count and clock speeds without increasing the size of the chip. 

And sure enough, the M6 is richer in cores than the previous M4 part. The M6 has 12 CPU cores and 12 GPU cores — up from 10 cores of each type in the M4 chipset. Meanwhile, the core count of the neural processing unit that’s designed to handle the integer math required for AI tasks, including Apple Intelligence, has doubled.

Josh Goldman/CNET

The M6 has a dual 16-core neural engine; its combined 32 cores are double the 16-core NPU of the M4 and M5 Pro. The M6 and M5 Pro also feature the same neural accelerators on the GPU that Apple introduced with the M5 to help boost AI and ray-tracing performance.

For $899, the M6 Mac Mini has 16GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD and a 2.5Gb Ethernet adapter. Offering 256GB of storage on a desktop computer, no matter how small that computer may be, is borderline offensive. You can’t even buy a MacBook Air with a 256GB SSD after Apple jettisoned that undersized option earlier this year. Unfortunately, the cost to double the storage to 512GB is steep at $200, which quickly pushes the price of the Mac Mini over $1,000. Want to double it again to 1TB? That’s another $300. Be prepared to part with another $500 if you want to double it yet again to 2TB.

Memory costs are similarly steep. Each 8GB upgrade adds $200 to the bill, going from 16GB to 24GB and 24GB to 32GB. Choose one of the M5 Pro upgrades, and you can take the memory to 48GB or 64GB and storage up to a whopping 8TB. (I’ll let you discover those upgrade prices on your own; just be sure you’re sitting down when you take a look.)

Pricing for the Mac Mini with an M5 Pro starts at $1,699. For that price, you get an M5 Pro with a 15-core CPU and 16-core GPU, along with 24GB of memory and a 512GB SSD. (Yes, along with you, I was relieved to see the 256GB SSD option disappear with the M5 Pro upgrade.)

Josh Goldman/CNET

Apple sent me the higher of the two M5 Pro offerings. It has an 18-core CPU and a 20-core GPU. Apple also upped the memory to 48GB and the storage to 1TB while also upgrading the Ethernet adapter to 10Gbps. The cost of this test system is $2,899. That’s $400 more than the entry-level Mac Studio.

Notably, the M5 Pro chips have the same 16-core neural engine as the standard M5 chip and not the M6’s dual 16-core neural engine. No matter the CPU you choose, the Mac Mini comes with Apple’s N1 chip that delivers Wi-Fi 7 and Bluetooth 6 networking.

The good news and bad news with Apple’s unified memory

Let’s get the bad news (and a couple of acronyms) out of the way first. Apple’s M-series processors have a system-on-a-chip (or SoC) design with a unified memory architecture. The downside of this arrangement is that the RAM cannot be upgraded after purchase. You’re locked into whatever amount you buy. Common on today’s laptops, it’s more of a drag on a desktop computer, even one as compact as the Mac Mini, where space for upgrades is limited.

Now, the good news. The SoC design combines the CPU, GPU and neural engine to remove bottlenecks and speed up both performance and efficiency. And with Apple’s UMA, the system’s memory is shared among the CPU, GPU and neural engine instead of splitting it into separate blocks where most of the RAM is accessed by the CPU and only a smaller amount of video RAM is allocated to the GPU. Running a local LLM is extremely memory-intensive, which is why the affordable Mac Mini, with its unified memory, has become the move for many people looking to run local AI agents.

Josh Goldman/CNET

Memory bandwidth has improved with the new Mini models. The M6 Mac Mini’s memory has a bandwidth of up to 153 GB/s with 16GB of RAM and up to 170 GB/s with 24GB or more, which is an increase from the 120 GB/s of the M4 Mini. The M5 Pro jumps you up to a memory bandwidth of 307 GB/s. 

Design stays the same

Apple refreshed the internals but kept the design the same from the M4 model, which introduced a much smaller footprint than the previous M2 model. The M6 Mini has the same 5-by-5-inch box that stands 2 inches tall, with the power button still in the same somewhat strange location. It’s on the bottom panel, which means you’ll need to pick up the Mini to power it on.

The same design means the new Mini has the same port selection, which was strong with the M4 Mini, so it wasn’t begging for a change — unless you were looking for the adapter-free convenience of getting a USB-A port. With all of the USB ports of the Type-C variety, you’ll need an adapter for older USB-A peripherals or a wired mouse. Like the M4 model, the M6 Mini supports up to three external displays.

Josh Goldman/CNET

M6 and M5 Pro Mac Mini performance so far

Based on my initial testing, the M6 Mac Mini is looking like it’s going to be an even more popular pick than the M5 Pro Mini or previous M4 Mini for agentic AI workloads. The dual 16-core neural engine, combined with the neural accelerator on each GPU core, helped the M6 rocket ahead of the M4 Mini on our Geekbench AI test, which measures the on-device AI performance of a laptop’s NPU. The M6 also topped the M5 Pro Mini and every M5-based MacBook we’ve tested on this test. The M5 has the GPU neural accelerators of the M6 but not its dual 16-core neural engine.

Still, the Asus Ascent QN10 mini PC based on a Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite CPU performed better on this test than the M6 Mini, thanks to its NPU, which is capable of 80 trillion operations per second.

On our application benchmarks, the M6 Mini turned in outstanding single-core performance on the Geekbench 6 and Cinebench 2024 tests, where it again outpaced the M5 Pro and the crop of M5 MacBooks and Windows competitors. The M5 Pro Mini put its extra CPU cores to good use and beat the M6 Mini on the Geekbench 6 multicore test, but surprisingly, it fell short of the M6 Mini on the multicore CPU test of Cinebench 2024.

Where the M5 Pro Mini had its largest advantage over the M6 Mini in graphics performance. It easily outpaced the M6 Mini on our 3DMark Steel Nomad test.

I have more tests to run on these two machines to further investigate their AI and graphics performance. Check out the initial benchmark results below for the M6 and M5 Pro Mini, and check back soon for my full review of Apple’s latest Minis.

System configurations

Matt Elliott

Senior Editor

Matt Elliott is a senior editor at CNET with a focus on laptops and streaming services. Matt has more than 20 years of experience testing and reviewing laptops. He has worked for CNET in New York and San Francisco and now lives in New Hampshire. When he’s not writing about laptops, Matt likes to play and watch sports. He loves to play tennis and hates the number of streaming services he has to subscribe to in order to watch the various sports he wants to watch.

See full bio

Advertisement

I recently switched my phone service to EE, as it has better coverage (and 5G) where I spend a lot of time. As a freelancer, I had to get my phone on a business contract, which started oddly and soon turned into a farce, and now it’s impossible to manage my account online.

In this age of advanced AI, super-fast mobile networks and data at our fingertips, how can a company the size of EE (and owned by BT) be unable to make something as simple as online account management work?

An eSIM by post

Things started strangely when I tried to order an eSIM. I thought that I’d get the eSIM in an email, but I was told that the system was down, so it had to be posted. Yes, you read that right: the eSIM had to be posted.

To be fair, the service was fast, and the next day I had an envelope with a cardboard wallet containing the QR code for my eSIM. A few minutes later, I had the eSIM installed and connected, and glorious 5G was mine, with better reception.

It was even smooth transferring my old number to my new account. But that’s where things started to go wrong.

Online account linking didn’t work

I was about to go on a work trip to Berlin, so I wanted to check that my Roam Abroad Inclusive Extra, which I’d picked on checkout, was added to my account. Despite being able to create an EE account, I found that it wouldn’t let me add my phone.

So, I called for support and was told there was an issue, but my account would be manually linked, and it would take up to four working days. I explained about the work trip and was told that it was noted, and roaming was turned on.

When I landed in Berlin, I got a text saying roaming charges applied per day. My Roam Abroad extra had not been applied. Fortunately, I could do this by text.

Business account linking can’t be done manually

When I got back, I found that my account still hadn’t been linked, so I had to phone again. This time, I got closer to the truth.

“The reason being the EE app is getting upgrade to a better version and it’s under maintenance, so that’s the reason why you are not able to [link your account],” the support person told me.

I was then offered paper bills every month, and the option to call for help every time I wanted to do something simple, but no option to have the actual issue fixed. When I took out the account, the sales team didn’t mention that online account management was broken. I told this to the support person, who denied that account linking is broken and said that “it is getting upgraded to a better version”.

When pressed on why the account linking is broken, I was told, “It is not broken.”

Apparently, “There’s a difference between a broken app. There’s a difference between an app and an app under maintenance and getting upgraded to a better version.”

And there is. A broken app doesn’t work and doesn’t let you do the most basic of things.

I asked, “So, does my app work at the moment?”

And the answer was, “No.”

“So if it doesn’t work…” I began to say.

“That doesn’t mean it’s broken,” interrupted the support person. 

“It does. If something doesn’t work, it’s broken,” I said.

I was then offered some further help and asked to wait for two minutes. Which I did. Rather than help, I was put through to the e-business upgrades team instead. Another trip through security questions, and I was transferred to the service team, who also had to put me through the security questions.

Business account linking has been broken for ages and there’s no confirmed fix

Finally, this support person told me what the actual problem was.

“You are not being able to sync your numbers, check accounts online, manage your account online. Basically our EE app and our website; both versions are not working as they should,” said the support person. “There are technical difficulties that have been going on for several months now. I’ll be very honest with you. This is a recorded line. I’m giving you this information. Okay. Now, this has been going on for several months.”

Apparently, EE needs to build a new application to manage accounts, and there’s no confirmed date for when this will be done. And, the old version can’t be reverted to, either. 

“Previously what we were trying was to revive the application which we already had, but we have things have not turned up good,” I was told.

I was then told that if I really wanted online account management, you know, almost as though we were in the 21^stcentury in a world filled with technology, then I could cancel my account as I was in the cooling-off period. Or, I could have paper billing, which would be provided free of charge.

I asked for a discount on my line while the issues are fixed, but apparently that’s impossible to do on any day except day one of the contract.

My call finished with the service representative confirming that the online application is broken: “To manage things online, yes, you need access to our online applications, which is currently broken.”

So, what is going on? Looking around, it seems as though the issue has been dragging on for a long period. This Reddit thread from a year ago describes the same issue. So does this thread from September 2025 on the EE support forum, which describes the issue as starting in November 2024.

I got in contact with EE to ask for a statement and for more detail on the issue, but only had my request put through as a complaint. The resolution of the complaint? Paper billing, of course.

Oura spent the first nine months of its financial year buying its own shares back from its investors. On Monday it started selling them to everybody else.

The Finnish smart ring maker launched its initial public offering before the New York open. It is marketing 50 million shares at $40 to $44 each. At the top of that range the deal raises $2.2bn. That values Oura at about $14.1bn, according to Bloomberg, which calculated the figure from the share count in the filing. Oura has applied to list on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker OURA.

Read the split and the deal changes shape. Of the 50 million shares, Oura is selling 13.5 million. The other 36.5 million belong to existing stockholders. The 30-day over-allotment option of a further 7.5 million shares is also entirely theirs.

Oura keeps a quarter of its own flotation

At the top of the range, the company collects roughly $594m before fees. Its shareholders collect about $1.61bn, or 73% of the base deal. Exercise the over-allotment and the selling stockholders take close to $1.94bn of a $2.53bn deal. That is 77% of it. The release puts the point without decoration. “Oura will not receive any proceeds from the sale of its common stock by the selling stockholders,” it says.

Cash-outs are normal in a late-stage listing. The ratio is what draws attention. Most of the money raised on Oura’s debut goes to people who already own Oura. The company itself walks away with less than a third of it.

The ask has come down

A month ago the number was bigger. Bloomberg reported in August that Oura was targeting up to $3bn. The valuation attached to it was above $16bn, as TNW covered at the time. The launched deal is about 27% smaller than that ask, at a valuation roughly $2bn lower.

Set against a different marker, it still reads as a step up. Oura closed an $875m Series E last September at $10.9bn. A $14.1bn debut is 29% above that in twelve months. Which comparison matters depends on whether you were in the August book or the 2025 round.

Why the company wants the cash

The $594m lands on a balance sheet that has been emptied out on purpose. In the nine months to 30 June, Oura repurchased $1.17bn of its own stock. That included 13,295,528 preferred shares at $40.18 each in a February tender offer. It drew $375m on a revolving credit facility to help pay for it.

Those buybacks are the reason the filing shows a $924.3m loss. The operating business made $60.8m of net income over the period. A $985m deemed dividend to preferred holders turned that into a loss attributable to common stockholders. TNW set out that distinction when the S-1 first appeared. By 30 June the company held $371.8m of cash against a stockholders’ deficit of $1.62bn.

Seen that way, the Oura IPO is the back half of a transaction that started in February. Oura bought its early investors out at $40.18. It is now offering the same company to the public at $40 to $44.

The membership line is the bull case

Hardware is not what the bankers are selling. Oura’s membership revenue grew 121% to $240.5m over the nine months, against 65% growth in hardware. The membership gross margin is 89%. Roughly 94% of ring buyers convert to a paid plan and about 85% stay after a year. Sixty-three per cent take the annual option.

The company updated its S-1 on Monday. It now guides towards approximately 5.7 million paid members by the end of fiscal 2026. That would be 96% year-on-year growth, and it credits sales of the Oura Ring 5, the model it shipped in May. Members stood at 5.0 million at the end of June, so the guidance implies another 700,000 in the final stretch.

Oura sold about 3.6 million rings in the trailing twelve months and holds around 2% of the global wearables market. Eli Lilly’s $50m investment converts to stock at pricing.

What the sceptics are pointing at

Two things sit in the risk section and neither is abstract. The first is warranty. Oura booked $84.4m of warranty expense in fiscal 2025. It carried a $132.3m accrual at the end of June, having paid $75.5m of claims in nine months. For a company that sold 3.1 million rings over the same period, that is a live cost line rather than a rounding error.

The second is the accuracy question. A proposed class action in the Northern District of California challenges Oura’s marketed claim of 95% sleep staging accuracy against a clinical sleep lab. It cites research on 45 patients that put overall classification at 53.18%. Oura rejects it. “We stand behind our science, research, and accuracy claims,” the company said. It pointed to studies comparing its staging favourably with polysomnography. The suit names both Oura Inc. and the Finnish parent, Oura Health Oy.

Eighteen banks, and Robinhood is the last one

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Allen & Company and Jefferies are joint lead book-running managers. BofA Securities, Barclays and Wells Fargo Securities sit a tier below, then Citizens, KeyBanc and Guggenheim, then six more. Robinhood appears once, at the bottom, as the sole co-manager.

That placement was visible in the S-1 two weeks ago and it has survived to launch. The retail broker is in the syndicate for this deal, and it is in it last.

Founded in Finland, listed in New York

Oura was founded in Finland in 2013 and keeps its EU headquarters in Oulu. Its corporate headquarters is San Francisco, and the listing is on Nasdaq. It is the same route Revolut is now planning and the one Anthropic has chosen. European policymakers keep describing that pattern as a problem: companies built in Europe raise their public money somewhere else.

The test is not the first day of trading. It is whether 5.7 million paid members arrives on schedule. The number to read it against is the warranty line, when Oura files its first quarter as a public company.

Two weeks, eight-ish cities, and one pre-production Slate pickup rolling from Indiana toward California with no script and no spare day to get ready. Slate Auto framed the You Asked For It Tour as a working road trip rather than a victory lap. Followers sent tasks by comment and direct message. The crew took the next one that landed, loaded the truck, and left.

The Slate made its premiere in Warsaw, Indiana, at the old catalog company that is now producing trucks. Robots are welding body-in-white shells, and parts are building up in a corrosion tank, while on the other side, seats are being assembled. Even as they work on fine-tuning the exact vehicle that will be used for the remaining miles, they keep that truck on the factory test track, driving over articulating humps, cobblestones at full lock, and even screeching to an ABS stop from 45 mph. Only the camera equipment was creating a noise.

Sale

LEGO City Off-Road 4×4 Mountain Truck Toy – Building Toy Set for Kids, Boys and Girls, Ages 6+ – Fun Gift…

• BUILD A TRUCK TOY – Elevate kids playtimes with the LEGO City Off-Road 4×4 Mountain Truck playset for boys and girls aged 6 years old and older
• TOY FOR BOYS AND GIRLS – Includes everything kids need to build an off-road truck toy and adventurer minifigure for off-road exploration adventures
• DETAILED FEATURES – Kids can use the winch to traverse steep inclines, flip the vehicle snorkel to pop up the hood and access tools and equipment in…

Indiana then asked the vehicle to do a favor for an intern named Michelle. She was returning to school with all of her belongings from the summer, and the crew simply added a hitch, filled up the bed and a trailer, and sent her on her way, covering 103 miles in about two hours, with the backup camera coming in help when they got stuck in some tight locations. In fact, she was the first person to benefit from a Slate’s carrying capabilities, as the odometer read 17 miles when they started it up.

In Chicago, the pickup was sent out on a business drive for Yianni, a bowling alley restorer. Paint cans, a gumball machine, a commercial slushy unit, and spare bowling pins were among the items packed inside this small truck. They even managed to put some extra items in the trunk, and by the end of the day, the bowling pins had miraculously remained where they belonged. In the end, this little truck’s small stature was more useful than any horsepower they could have put at it in the city lanes.

The same stretch of road led them to some nasty pavement, a few extra donuts, and two folks who’d reserved a Slate but hadn’t bothered to pay a deposit. One of the prospective owners wanted to check if this small vehicle could make a full circuit at an empty intersection before returning to a driveway with a light pole directly in the way. Another was curious to see whether this city truck could take a few scratches and still have some soul.

St. Louis added even worse road and another donut, but none of this will ruin your attitude on a ‘polished press tour’. Four hundred miles down the road, the vehicle arrived in Tulsa with a flat tire and more than a thousand miles on it. They repaired it on the side of the road with a reamer, rubber cement, and a stopper. Nick and Liv from a DIY channel came along with a family in need of a variety of items, including mattresses, school supplies, clothing, food, and a wheelchair ramp for a daughter who needed to go to the hospital for surgery. The midgate hooks and straps handled the added weight, chainsaws and weed eaters cleaned up the yard, and when they departed, the house looked completely different.

Sulfur, Oklahoma wanted to know if an electric pickup truck might work on a bison ranch.Dusty from Cross Timbers needs to relocate his herd from one pasture to another. The Slate electric vehicle came in helpful because it could pull a sled across a water crossing, move hay, and even transport mineral blocks in the back. According to all reports, the bison, notably a big ol’ fella named Big Joe, were more interested than angry with the strange machine. The silent motors proved to be a tremendous blessing, even more so than you might anticipate, especially when dealing with animals who can detect even the slightest noise, and the best part is that after all that use, the truck still looked like a regular old truck.

The California demo rides are held at the far end of the same pre-production vehicle. Preorders are still open, and delivery windows are quickly filling up. People are still invited to provide any ideas they may have for other chores the truck could undertake. The tour featured a $25,000 rear-drive electric pickup with crank windows and a claimed range of 205 miles, and its ability to haul everything from intern furniture to bowling equipment and even donated mattresses without the need for a second truck was eye-opening. The goal behind all of this was to test the waters and see what people wanted this device to do.

Microsoft warned that the built-in File History backup feature in Windows may stop working on some systems after installing the September 2026 security updates.

File History (introduced in Windows 8 and replaced by Windows Backup, which backs up data to OneDrive) automatically saves copies that let users recover accidentally deleted or damaged files using an older version from hours, days, or weeks ago.

By default, File History backs up all folders under the user’s account profile (Documents, Music, Pictures, Videos, and Desktop) to an external hard drive, such as a USB flash drive, or a network storage location (NAS).

In a service alert seen by BleepingComputer and first spotted by Microsoft MVP Susan Bradley, Microsoft says that affected customers can see application crash events in Event Viewer referencing FileHistory.exe and KERNELBASE.dll.

“After installing the September 2026 Windows security update (the Originating KBs listed above), some customers using File History, might be unable to create or update backups,” it said. “File History, available through Control Panel > System and Security > File History, is used to back up files to an external drive or network location.”

On affected devices, Windows might also incorrectly display “Reconnect your drive” messages even when compatible backup drives are connected and working properly. Other symptoms include the “Last Backup” timestamp not updating and previously backed-up files showing “No previous version available.”

Affected Windows releases include Windows 10 21H2 or later, Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC 2016/2019, and Windows 11 23H2 and later.

The September 2026 cumulative updates have been linked to multiple issues affecting home and enterprise Windows users.

One week ago, Microsoft released out-of-band updates to fix Remote Desktop Services failures, Hyper-V issues, and USB audio problems triggered by this month’s security updates.

However, it also confirmed that these emergency updates did not resolve all the audio problems introduced by the September 2026 updates, and that it is still working on a fix for the remaining issues.

Microsoft also shared a temporary workaround for a separate bug that prevents some Windows 11 users from logging in with valid domain credentials after installing the September updates.

Join Mikko Hyppönen and security leaders from the NFL, CHANEL, and Atlassian for a two-hour digital summit on what AI-speed attacks change, what defenders should stop doing, and how to validate, decide, fix, and re-validate at machine speed.

Save your seat

Sennheiser has spent decades building headphones for recording studios, broadcast facilities, and working musicians. Audiophiles might claim the brand as one of their own, but professional audio has always been central to Sennheiser’s identity, which makes the new HD 480 Pro Plus particularly interesting.

The Sennheiser HD 480 Pro Plus is a full-size professional monitoring headphone designed around the things studio users actually care about: comfort, durability, replaceable parts, and the ability to survive long sessions without becoming a distraction. From a design perspective, Sennheiser gets a lot of that right.

The tuning, however, is where things become more complicated.

Rather than chasing the ruler-flat response many engineers expect from a studio monitor, the HD 480 Pro Plus rolls off the frequency extremes and places greater emphasis on the midrange. That approach can work extremely well with vocals, acoustic instruments, and less bass-dependent recordings, but it also raises an obvious question: is this really the kind of tuning professionals want from a studio headphone?

Related Reading:

Design & Build

The HD 480 Pro comes in two versions. The headphone itself is sold as the HD 480 Pro for $399, while the HD 480 Pro Plus adds a hard case and retails for $439. The headphone is identical in both packages, so while I received the Pro Plus for review, buyers of the standard HD 480 Pro are giving up nothing beyond the case.

The HD 480 Pro follows a familiar Sennheiser design approach with large oval earcups, a broad padded headband, and a mostly plastic construction intended to keep the weight under control. It is very clearly the closed-back counterpart to the previously reviewed HD 490 Pro, with identical dimensions and considerable parts commonality between the two models.

One change worth noting is production. While the HD 490 Pro was designed in Germany, production takes place in Romania.

The extensive use of plastic is a double-edged sword. At 272 grams, the HD 480 Pro is relatively light, which matters when a headphone might be worn through an entire recording session. That weight savings only works, however, if durability has not been substantially compromised in the process.

Studio headphones are tools. They get dropped, thrown into gig bags, bounced between locations, and subjected to considerably more abuse than most headphones sitting beside an amplifier at home. Sennheiser strikes a good middle ground here, with enough metal reinforcement in the headband that a slight twist is unlikely to cause any damage and polymer components thick enough that a few trips to the floor should not leave pieces behind.

Fit and finish are fairly middle of the road. There is only so much that can be done to hide the seams between polymer components, but the adjustments are clearly defined and feel solid, which again reflects Sennheiser’s effort to balance weight, durability, and cost.

The earcups rotate sufficiently to make storage and transport easier, while the broad headband spreads pressure evenly across the top of the head.

The detachable cable terminates in a 3.5mm plug with a screw-on 6.35mm adapter at the source end, while the headphone end uses a micro-XLR connector that can be attached to either earcup depending on user preference. The cable also reflects the HD 480 Pro’s intended professional use, combining straight and coiled sections in an effort to provide additional working length without turning storage into a wrestling match.

Comfort & Fit

Comfort is one of the HD 480 Pro Plus’s strongest characteristics. At just 272 grams, it is light enough for extended listening, while the broad headband distributes pressure effectively across the top of the head. Clamping force is noticeable but not excessive. Listeners with larger heads may find the fit somewhat snug at first, but the pressure becomes less intrusive once the headband is adjusted and the pads begin to settle.

The velour pads are smaller than those used on the HD 6xx series, but there is still enough room that my ears did not touch the inside of the pads. The use of velour does reduce passive isolation somewhat compared with leather or more heavily sealed pads, but it also helps keep heat under control during longer sessions.

With a closed-back design, that choice may be deliberate. The open-back HD 490 Pro offers a more sealed pad option that will also fit the HD 480 Pro, giving listeners some flexibility if they prefer greater isolation or a slightly different feel.

As with any full-size headphone, eyeglasses can affect the seal. Listeners with thicker frames may notice some variation in bass weight depending on how the pads sit, although I found it relatively easy to make small adjustments and achieve a consistent fit.

Drivers & Specifications

The design of the HD 480 Pro relies on more than just the driver itself to improve performance. Sennheiser’s Vibration Attenuation System is integrated into the earcups to reduce unwanted vibrations, reflections, and distortion, while the geometrically angled earcups position the drivers to provide a more consistent path to the ear.

The 38mm dynamic drivers use neodymium magnets and an ultralight voice coil, with the latter intended to improve speed and transient response.

Nominal impedance is listed at 130 ohms, with a sensitivity of 98 dB SPL at 1 mW. While that impedance figure might suggest the need for substantial amplification, the HD 480 Pro is easier to drive than a number of traditional studio headphones and worked well with the portable sources I used during testing. With most modern portable gear, sensitivity is the more immediate concern, and the HD 480 Pro does not require an especially powerful amplifier to reach useful listening levels.

Frequency response is specified at 3 Hz to 28,700 Hz (-10 dB), which is oddly specific at the upper end. That level of precision suggests those figures are tied to actual measurement results rather than the conveniently rounded marketing numbers we often see printed on the box.

Listening

The HD 480 Pro Plus has limited sub-bass presence, beginning to roll off below about 50 Hz. While the published frequency response claims extension down to 3 Hz, output is already substantially reduced well before reaching that point, which makes me wonder what tolerance was used for that specification. Sub-bass is neither emphasized nor especially well defined, and even with EDM or dedicated bass test tracks, the HD 480 Pro produces relatively little energy in the lowest octave. Anyone looking for serious low-end weight will not find it here.

What the HD 480 Pro does offer is fairly clean and uncolored mid-bass. There is more presence here than in the sub-bass, but it never takes a starring role. Think supporting cast rather than lead actor. Above roughly 40 Hz, the bass response is close to neutral and remains fairly even as it transitions into the lower midrange.

The midrange is somewhat more prominent, but not artificially pushed forward. Vocals cut through the mix cleanly, guitars retain good clarity and rasp, and strings have enough energy through their lower registers to sound natural. Some of that realism is lost as strings move into the upper registers, largely because of the polite treble and the closed-back design, which limits the sense of air.

Lower-register vocals have good weight, while higher voices sit slightly farther forward and carry somewhat less body. Sibilance and nasal coloration are clearly audible when they are present in the recording, so the HD 480 Pro does not hide mistakes. Just as importantly, I did not find it prone to creating either problem when they were not already there.

Treble is on the polite side, with reasonable extension but limited energy. There is a modest rise from roughly 3 kHz through 5 kHz, followed by a more substantial reduction above about 7 kHz. That helps keep the HD 480 Pro from becoming fatiguing, but it also limits air and sparkle and prevents cymbals from sounding entirely realistic.

The result is a presentation that feels more closed-in than the open-back HD 490 Pro. It also explains why strings can sound somewhat octave-dependent, with a more natural presentation through the midrange than in the upper registers.

On a consumer headphone, I understand tuning the treble to reduce fatigue. On a headphone intended for professional monitoring and mastering, however, I find the choice more difficult to justify. A significant reduction above 7 kHz could potentially mask an overly bright master, allowing excess energy in that region to hide behind the headphone’s own tuning.

The soundstage is solid for a closed-back design, although it does not create the same sense of openness as the HD 490 Pro. Width is respectable, and the presentation avoids feeling trapped inside the earcups, but it remains fairly intimate overall. Imaging is good, with instrument placement easy enough to follow and individual elements maintaining clear positions within the mix.

The Bottom Line

The Sennheiser HD 480 Pro Plus gets a lot right. It is light, comfortable, durable enough for studio use, and the detachable cable can be connected to either earcup. The midrange is clean and revealing, making vocals, guitars, and acoustic instruments especially convincing.

Its biggest weakness is the tuning at the frequency extremes. The rolled-off sub-bass and restrained upper treble reduce fatigue, but they also make the HD 480 Pro less revealing than I would expect from a professional monitoring headphone.

For acoustic music and vocal-heavy material, that balance works well. For EDM, bass-heavy recordings, or mastering work where problems at both ends of the spectrum need to be obvious, it is a much harder sell.

Pros:

• Lightweight 272-gram design is comfortable for long sessions
• Durable construction strikes a good balance between weight and studio use
• Detachable cable can connect to either earcup
• Clean, natural midrange with strong vocal and guitar clarity
• Good imaging and respectable soundstage for a closed-back headphone
• Non-fatiguing presentation works well with acoustic and vocal-heavy material

Cons:

• Sub-bass rolls off early and lacks weight
• Upper treble is too restrained for a professional monitoring headphone
• Tuning may mask problems at the frequency extremes
• Less convincing with EDM and bass-heavy music
• Fit and finish are functional rather than premium

Our Ratings:

★★★★★★★★★★ Sound Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Build Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Comfort

★★★★★★★★★★ Isolation

★★★★★★★★★★ Value

Where to Buy:

Related Reading: