Of all the debates raging about the potential downsides of AI, there is one worry causing the most hand-wringing among AI enthusiasts in Silicon Valley. Their fear is that the giant AI labs that sell proprietary models are somehow acting like Trojan horses.

The concern is that, as startups and enterprises use AI models from labs like OpenAI and Anthropic, the labs gain ever-increasing access to those companies’ most sensitive business information. The model makers can then use that knowledge for themselves, potentially becoming competitors to their own customers. Those issuing such warnings range from VCs like Jason Calacanis to Palantir CEO Alex Karp.

Now, in a surprising blog post published on Monday, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has joined this crowd. Nadella warns that AI users (the “buyers” as he calls them) are paying twice. They knowingly spend for AI token usage but they also, obliviously, hand over valuable data in the process.

“You essentially pay for intelligence twice, once with money, and again with something even more valuable: the proprietary knowledge you must reveal to make that intelligence useful. The better you want the model to perform, the more of that knowledge you have to feed it!” he writes.

Most dangerously, enterprises are literally teaching the models about the nuances of their businesses, he argues.

“Models learn from ‘exhaust,’ the prompts people write, the tools agents use, and especially the corrections people make when the model is wrong. Every correction is distilled into institutional know-how,” he writes.

This is “the kind of knowledge a competitor could never buy,” and yet enterprises are handing it over.

Nadella argues that if AI companies get to freely scrape the internet to train their models, it’s only fair that enterprises get to study — or “distill” — those models in return. “Distillation” is the practice of using a model’s own outputs to learn how it works and to train a new, often cheaper, model based on those insights. In February Anthropic accused Chinese open source models of sending millions of prompts to Claude as a way to improve their own models, and urged the U.S. government crack down on export controls.

Nadella’s point is that model makers can’t have it both ways. It’s hypocritical for them to freely train on the world’s data while restricting others from doing the same to their models.

“While the great innovation that comes from model providers having fair use rights to train models on public data is needed, I find it ironic that the status quo is to then turn around and impose restrictive terms on distillation,” the Microsoft CEO writes.

Nadella is particularly concerned when model makers “reserve the right to learn from customer usage and interaction data.”

Nadella’s solution is the kind of thing the CEO of a giant cloud provider would suggest. He wants companies to “retain ownership” of their data including prompts, feedback, etc. So he’s urging them to build their own “proprietary learning environments” on the cloud (where their data is likely already stored anyway and, conveniently, which could mean Microsoft’s cloud, Azure). He also wants companies to build in what he calls “orchestration layers” — essentially, a way to easily switch between AI models from different providers rather than being locked into one. Tools like AI “gateways” that let companies do exactly this, have become increasingly popular.

While Nadella never uses the words “open-source” as the method for retaining ownership, this is an obvious subtext. Yet, there’s another subtext.

Large companies, many of which still have some of their own data centers in addition to using the cloud, are already moving to open source models installed on their own premises (“on-prem,” in industry jargon). Idit Levine, founder and CEO of Solo.io — which makes networking and security software that helps enterprises manage AI systems — says she’s seeing exactly this shift play out with her own customers. After experimenting with proprietary model makers, they start asking themselves: “Can I take an open-source model and run it on-prem? It will do almost 90% of what the big one’s doing. It will cost way less,” she tells TechCrunch. “They understand that, and they can control it.”

Solo.io’s technology was selected last year as the tech powering the Linux Foundation’s Agentgateway project. Her company counts enterprises like T-Mobile, ADP and SAP as customers. She sees companies increasingly installing on-premise open source models and sees it as the next big wave in enterprise AI use.

She’s not alone. Vercel — best known as a platform for building and hosting websites, which has recently added AI model-switching tools — and OpenRouter, a company that helps developers route requests across different AI models — are both seeing a surge in traffic to open-source models. In fact, open models accounted for 29% of all traffic routed through Vercel’s gateway last month.

With the CEO of Microsoft, a company that has invested in both OpenAI and Anthropic, now openly urging enterprises to be wary of using proprietary models, we’ll bet this trend continues to grow. “In consuming intelligence, you are creating intelligence. And what you create should belong to you,” Nadella writes.

Tesla is building a wheelchair-accessible autonomous vehicle, a Tesla representative told lawmakers in Washington, DC, on Monday.

“We are in development for a purpose-built, wheelchair-accessible autonomous vehicle,” Tesla senior policy advisor India Herdman told members of the DC City Council on Monday, during a hearing focused on a controversial bill that could allow robotaxi services to operate in the District. “We know that paratransit can be very difficult, and people who are confined to wheelchairs permanently should still be able to move around freely, so that is an active product being built by Tesla in Texas,” she said.

Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment. Herdman provided no further details about when a wheelchair-accessible product might be available. The electric automaker often takes several years to manufacture its announced products.

Tesla operates a small fleet of autonomous vehicles in the Texas cities of Austin, Dallas, and Houston and, as of this month, in Miami, Florida. (It also operates a service that uses human drivers in the San Francisco Bay Area.) The limited fleet uses Tesla Model Y, a compact SUV that is not wheelchair accessible.

The company has started to manufacture and test a purpose-built Cybercab, meant exclusively for autonomous driving and without steering wheels or pedals. These Cybercabs are not wheelchair accessible, though Tesla highlighted in an X post this month its accessibility features, including braille lettering on controls and wheelchair-height seating to allow for easier transfers.

Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, have hinted previously at a wheelchair-accessible autonomous vehicle. The company introduced an accessibility tab in its Robotaxi app last fall, though it directs users to other wheelchair-accessible ride providers in the area, rather than to Tesla’s own service. “We are working on accessible rides,” the app says. In response to an X user’s post last fall about Tesla working on accessible rides, Musk responded, “Absolutely.”

No US robotaxi company currently offers fleetwide driverless, wheelchair-accessible rides, including market leader Waymo. At the DC hearing on Monday, Waymo regional head of state and local policy Matt Walsh said, “To date, it’s my understanding that we haven’t been able to identify a platform that is fully wheelchair-accessible while also meeting the unique specifications to retrofit that vehicle with our technology.” He continued: “Now, I don’t want that to sound like a cop-out. We are trying to find that vehicle.”

Waymo has touted the accessibility features of its newest vehicle, the Zeekr-built Ojai, including its flat floor, low step-in height, and grab bars. But it is not wheelchair accessible. Michigan-based Ann Arbor autonomous-vehicle developer May Mobility offers rides in wheelchair-accessible vehicles in some of its markets, with a human operator on board to help deploy necessary ramps.

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in transportation services and requires reasonable modifications to provide equal access. Some but not all US cities require ride-hailing companies to provide wheelchair-accessible services. Many of those companies provide those rides through partnerships with specialized fleets made up of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

In September 2025, the US Department of Justice sued Uber for “refusing to reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to avoid discriminating against riders with disabilities.” The case is being litigated.

General Motors’ Cruise introduced a prototype wheelchair-accessible driverless taxi in 2023 and said it intended to roll out the vehicle in its self-driving car service in 2024. But following a collision with a pedestrian, Cruise all but halted national service in 2023. The next year, General Motors stopped funding its self-driving unit entirely.

Sonia Anand of McMaster University, Gina Ogilvie from the University of British Columbia and Vanessa Watts, also of McMaster University, explore the impact partial information can have on research in the health space.

Beyond its importance for scientific discovery, representation in health research directly influences healthcare planning, policy development and resource allocation.

Without research that reflects the diversity of the populations served, important health needs may go unrecognised, contributing to inequities in prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Without research, major health issues faced by a given community cannot be known, nor can effective interventions be developed if the populations most affected are underrepresented in the evidence base.

Research ethics boards (REBs) exist to ensure that research is conducted ethically and to protect participants from privacy breaches, coercion and exploitation. But in striving to achieve these goals, ethical board policies can sometimes produce an unintended consequence: over-protection that restricts the participation of people and communities historically excluded from research, such as racialised communities, Indigenous people and recent immigrants.

An ethics process must not become so preoccupied with the potential harm of participation that it overlooks the certain harm of exclusion.

REBs often struggle to strike the right balance between protection and inclusion. When the pendulum swings too far towards protection, it can result in the very injustice it’s meant to prevent. The consequences can be profound – the people said to be protected are not heard, counted or represented in the evidence that shapes policy, care and resources.

The Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS-2) governing Canada’s three largest public research funders is clear on this point. The statement asserts that “over-protectionist attitudes or practices of researchers or REBs, whether intentional or inadvertent, can exclude some members of society from participating in research”, and that such exclusion “may constitute a failure to treat them justly”.

It also states that researchers, institutions and REBs “must navigate between the dangers of imposing unfair burdens on particular participants, groups and communities, and overprotecting them”.

It’s not protection at all costs, but protection balanced with justice. Ethics recognise exclusion as harm, so caution must not erase participation.

Community-based research

This balance matters enormously in community-based research with vulnerable populations. One example from our work with newcomers to Canada in the Ontario city of Hamilton was designed precisely to overcome barriers to healthy active living, since obesity-related risks are shaped by the lived realities of migration, poverty, neighbourhood design and social exclusion.

The purpose of community-based research is to generate knowledge with communities, not merely about them, so that interventions can be relevant, usable and fair. But it’s the type of research that can be hampered by over-protective REBs. Examples include recruiting study participants in public spaces where newcomer families naturally gather, or requiring separate approval for each poster placed in the community.

The rationale is to prevent coercion of vulnerable populations. But exclusion is also an ethical risk. Regulations that make it so difficult to engage people that research cannot proceed don’t protect the community – they lock the community out of participation.

The harms of not doing research are rarely given equal weight in ethics deliberations. Careful attention is paid to the possible discomfort of participation, but non-participation also causes damage. When communities are excluded from research, there’s no ability to document the burden of disease on that community. We cannot demonstrate unmet need, measure inequity or build the evidence that directs resources, services and policy attention to the people who need them most.

In the absence of data, systems can always claim there is “not enough evidence” when the very structures of oversight have helped prevent that evidence from being gathered.

Respect, welfare and justice

The Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement is rooted in three interdependent principles: respect for persons, concern for welfare and justice.

Concern for welfare requires researchers and REBs to protect participants from unnecessary risk and aim for the most favourable balance of risks and potential benefits. Justice requires that no segment of the population is unduly or overly burdened by research harms or denied the benefits of the knowledge generated from research.

Those principles cannot be selectively applied. If welfare is interpreted so narrowly that entire populations are denied the benefits of inclusion in research, then welfare has been severed from justice.

This is especially important for Indigenous Peoples. Research involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis people has too often been defined by non-Indigenous researchers, failed to reflect Indigenous world views and failed to benefit Indigenous Peoples or communities.

This is why Chapter 9 of the statement was developed; the policy emphasises respectful relationships, collaboration, engagement, representation in planning and decision-making, and attention to the specific situation of the community involved.

In other words, the answer to a history of exploitative research is not exclusion from research. It is better research: more respectful, participatory, accountable and more responsive to Indigenous priorities.

The historical relationship between research institutions and Indigenous communities has often been extractive. Unsanctioned medical experiments and the removal of material culture are examples that rightly justify stricter guidelines for Indigenous-focused research. And yet, there is a danger in overstating harm through the blanket framing of Indigenous Peoples as inherently “vulnerable” when REBs assess proposed studies.

Many Indigenous communities and organisations maintain their own research ethics and governance infrastructures, including data governance protocols that reflect principles of Indigenous data sovereignty. Indigenous researchers themselves must abide by these protocols. Indigenous data sovereignty emphasises community and nation-based authority over when, how and by whom data are accessed, shared or withheld.

These infrastructures have expanded in response to the increasing demand for Indigenous research following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. Universities now have more Indigenous researchers, more interest in Indigenous perspectives, more expectations of Indigenous participation and consultation, more calls for collaboration and co-creation, more frameworks attentive to ethics, consent and privacy.

Vulnerability, where it exists, should not be understated – real risks remain and must be mitigated. However, REB ethical vigilance should not become automatic exclusion.

Balancing protection and exclusion

Another example of over-protection is the exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research. There may be good reasons to exclude pregnant women from some studies, such as trials of medication that could potentially harm a fetus. But in many other cases, exclusions leave clinicians and patients without evidence for the people who actually need care.

Excluding a group to avoid risk may itself create long-term injustice by making the evidence base less applicable to them.

What should change is not the abandonment of an ethics review, but a more careful balance between protection and the injustice of exclusion. REBs and administrators should ask, at the outset, what harms may follow if this research is not done, is delayed or is made infeasible? Who loses if recruitment cannot happen in the spaces where people are? Whose voice disappears when the default answer is no?

The people most often missing from decision-making are the newcomer parent, the Indigenous community member, the racialised participant and the pregnant woman with no spare time to navigate institutional obstacles. These are not the people we should make hardest to reach. These are the people we should work hardest to include.

We must consider other ethical failures in addition to exploitation: the injustice of being excluded, including failure to measure the burden of disease affecting specific communities, and ensuring the safety and efficacy of treatments in that community.

Unless exclusion itself is recognised as a form of ethical injury, REBs, institutions and funders risk sidelining the people research is most needed to serve.

Engaging with communities of interest can help strike the right balance, whether through representation on REBs, representation on research teams or opportunities for community representatives to speak directly to the urgency of the research. Ethical oversight must do both: protect participants from harm and protect communities from being left out.

By Sonia Anand, Gina Ogilvie and Vanessa Watts

Sonia Anand is an associate vice-president for global health at McMaster University, a professor of medicine and epidemiology and a vascular medicine specialist at Hamilton Health Sciences in Canada. She holds the Canada research chair in ethnic diversity and cardiovascular disease, and is the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario/Michael G DeGroote chair in population health research. Her present research focuses on the environmental and genetic determinants of vascular disease in populations of varying ancestral origin and women and cardiovascular disease.

Gina Ogilvie is a Tier 1 Canada research chair in the global control of HPV-related diseases and prevention, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in the School of Population and Public Health. She is also the associate director of the Women’s Health Research Institute at BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre. She is currently principal investigator for more than $10m in research grants and has received funding from NIH, PHAC, CIHR, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Canadian Foundation for Innovation and private foundations including the BC Women’s Hospital Foundation.

Vanessa Watts is an associate professor of indigenous studies and sociology at McMaster University. She teaches about contemporary indigenous issues, residential schools, indigenous sovereignty, indigenous ways of knowing and methodologies, and indigenous ontologies. In 2018, she was awarded a SSHRC Insight Development Grant for her project, ‘An Indigenist Sociology of Knowledge: Indigenous social lives in Indigenous studies, sociology and political science (1895 and beyond)’. She is also a research fellow at the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University.

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

If you’ve ever been hooked up to a wearable machine at a doctor’s office, then you’re familiar with the electrodes that are attached to your body to monitor its electrical signals. The problem with these prefabricated metal-based or hydrogel electrodes is that they don’t always stay in place during movement, for long periods or on sweaty or hairy skin. 

Penn State University engineers aim to change this with paint-on tattoos that use conductive ink to power sensors for wearable devices such as EEGs, ECGs and EMGs that track brain, heart and muscle activity, respectively. 

As reported in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the engineering team filed a provisional patent for this ink, a water-based solution mixed with polymers and acidic additives that starts out transparent with a glue-like consistency. It can be pigmented with food dye to create different colors for a cute fox or shark that opens its mouth when you open your hand, and it dries on the skin in under 10 minutes. It can later be reapplied or washed off. 

Thanks to its customizable, fun nature, these paintable electrodes could be especially beneficial for children who may be more likely to wear a medical device if it’s powered by a temporary tattoo of their favorite character or animal. 

How the ink powers wearable devices

To connect the ink to sensors, there’s a porous silver textile with connective electrodes. Before your painted-on tattoo dries, the textile is placed on the design so that it will stick to the skin. Then, the textile is connected to a port on a wearable monitoring device. The latter is taped to the skin beneath clothing.

Electrical signals collected by the ink are sent through the textile to the monitoring device, which then transmits the data to a computer via Bluetooth. 

“The big idea behind this is that in the future, you could potentially have a more expensive sensing module that remains separate from the system, but the electrodes themselves can be disposable. A single bottle of ink could provide enough material to paint multiple electrodes over the course of several days or a week,” said Larry Cheng, the paper’s corresponding author and a James L. Henderson Jr. memorial professor of engineering science and mechanics at Penn State, in a press release.

The hope is that these temporary electrode tattoos can help spot heart attacks early, read brain waves or power robotic prosthetics.

Plus, since it’s painted directly onto the skin, the ink is more durable and accurate than sensors attached to the skin, as there may be an air gap between them and the skin. As for the silver textile, because it’s porous, its connective electrodes can expand to over 150% their original size. This means sweat can pass through the textile without negatively impacting adhesion, accuracy or comfort. 

What the team found during testing

When experimenting with the ink, the Penn State team found that the painted electrodes could monitor ECG signals for up to 12 hours. They also stayed on during exercise. When applied to a team member’s forearm, the electrodes successfully tracked muscle signals using an EMG device, enabling remote control of a robotic hand. 

Since the electrodes can be washed off and reapplied, 12 hours isn’t the limit for their use. 

Eventually, the painted electrodes could even power sensors that track cortisol or glucose. The team is also looking toward commercial use for doctors, such as pediatricians. Or, to create “smart plants” that provide information on chemical exposure in their environment and its impact on plant health. 

Just like it’s become normal to see people wearing health tracking smartwatches and smart rings, perhaps one day no one will bat an eye when they see someone leaving a doctor’s office with a temporary tattoo. 

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

That sounds simple enough. It is not.

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

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

Related Reviews:

Why the RW800 Matters

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

That has created tension inside the Rose ecosystem.

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

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

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

What the RW800 Does

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

The key feature is its two-mode design.

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

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

RW800 Core Features

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

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

Who Is It For?

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

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

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

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

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

What Makes It Unique

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

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

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

Competitors?

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

For more information: hifirose.com/product/rw800

Related Reading:

from the lego-lawyering dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not great!

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

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

McNeff: Yes.

Cop: Okay.

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

[other video interspersed before cutting back to this exchange]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you can’t read that, it says:

Mr. Schneider,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is what they came up with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Companies: bricks & minifigs, bricks and minifigs

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

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

What Is Wi-Fi 8?

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

Photograph: Simon Hill

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

What Benefits Does Wi-Fi 8 Bring?

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

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

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

Photograph: Simon Hill

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

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

When Does Wi-Fi 8 Arrive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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