Marc Porat sat with a red notebook in 1989, drawing what no one else could see. A little rectangular piece of glass with a touch screen, phone, fax, messages, video, games, ticket purchases, and apps delivered over the air. He named it the Pocket Crystal. It would feel like a piece of jewelry you carried every day, something with the comfort of a seashell and the pull of a crystal. At Apple, where he worked, the idea landed with John Sculley. Resources stayed scarce. So in May 1990 the project left Cupertino and became its own company. Bill Atkinson and Andy Hertzfeld, two of the original Macintosh wizards, signed on. General Magic was born.

They called the location after a line from Arthur C. Clarke. The idea is that any sufficiently advanced technology appears magical. You had a bunch of veteran Mac users and some hungry new developers crowded into Mountain View offices. Joanna Hoffman was in charge of marketing because she was one of the first people on board. Susan Kare developed the icons for the new operating system, and Megan Smith joined shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, a young whippersnapper named Tony Fadell walked in from the street. There were even rabbits bouncing around on the floors, as well as a parrot or two, presumably released by its owners when they went for the day. Some folks were even sleeping off while resting their heads on their desks. You could bet that at any minute, someone would start a water battle. However, the energy was fantastic. Everyone was confident they were onto something major, specifically the next item after the Mac.

Apple iPad 11-inch: A16 chip, 11-inch Model, Liquid Retina Display, 128GB, Wi-Fi 6, 12MP Front/12MP Back…

• WHY IPAD — The 11-inch iPad is now more capable than ever with the superfast A16 chip, a stunning Liquid Retina display, advanced cameras, fast…
• PERFORMANCE AND STORAGE — The superfast A16 chip delivers a boost in performance for your favorite activities. And with all-day battery life, iPad…
• 11-INCH LIQUID RETINA DISPLAY — The gorgeous Liquid Retina display is an amazing way to watch movies or draw your next masterpiece.* True Tone…

Magic Cap was the name of the operating system. When you first booted it up, you were in a virtual area that appeared to be a real office. There was your calendar in the corner, and your inbox was simply waiting for you. Walk down the virtual hallway and you’ll come across a variety of handy rooms, including a library, a game room, and even a downtown business center where you may purchase new software. Messages were decorated with stickers and animated characters, and those little faces evolved into the emojis we all know and love today. You could navigate with a stylus. Software modems handled connections without the need for additional hardware, and early versions of what we now know as USB connectors appeared. To keep things light, the hardware had to do significantly less work.

Telescript was the brainchild in charge of all the sophisticated elements. When you leave your smartphone, a digital “gentleman” will journey across networks and return with answers to your questions. Jim White and his team developed a language that enabled programs to move from one machine to another, just as humans go between cities. They discussed the “Telescript cloud” before anyone knew what it was. AT&T built PersonaLink on top of it because agents needed somewhere to go.

Before you knew it, some of the biggest players were lining up to participate in the action. Sony, Motorola, Matsushita, Philips, AT&T, and later NTT, Toshiba, and France Telecom also joined in. Each provided money and appointed their top executives to a special council. Sony’s John Sculley and Norio Ohga were among the best performers. The Alliance swiftly became the industry’s largest collection of business players, prompting antitrust specialists to establish new rules for the meetings. In 1993, the New York Times named General Magic Silicon Valley’s most-watched startup of the year.

Finally, after all of the excitement, the hardware was released in 1994. Sony shipped the Magic Link for a cool $800. The device looked like a grey brick with a stylus, a small monochrome screen, and a built-in modem that required a phone connector. Motorola followed up with the Envoy, which added a wireless radio to the equation. Both used Magic Cap. You could email, fax, or even page somebody if that was your preference. Keep your contacts and calendars up to date. Play some games and send some files over with IR, as the device was essentially a magic wand. However, nothing like existed previously. Of course, sales were small, with the majority of the units going to friends and relatives. Battery life was a joke, and performance was sluggish. Had no internet (yet) and no cell data worth noticing. To make matters worse, Apple had recently released the Newton the year before, which had likely stolen some of General Magic’s thunder.

An IPO in February 1995 nonetheless managed to raise 96 million dollars. But that was only the beginning; the stock had more than doubled on the first day, and it appeared like cash was flowing in. The engineers were practically unstoppable, and new gadgets popped up left and right. Later that year, Portico was introduced as a voice service that anyone could access using any old phone. An 800 number would then read out your email, calendar, and messages in a polite, calming voice, almost as if you had your own personal assistant. By the time they reached a peak of 2.5 million users, they had already created MyTalk, which has earned a permanent home in the Smithsonian. However, the initial notion of such ‘dream devices’ never really took off. AT&T chose to discontinue PersonaLink in 1996. By 1997, the hardware partners had essentially stopped producing. The stock fell precipitously, prompting layoffs. It all came to an end in September 2002, when activities ceased, and by 2004, they had been totally liquidated. Paul Allen ended up purchasing the majority of the patents.

On more than one occasion, I’ve embarrassed myself by brewing coffee outdoors and spilling a freshly made cup onto an unsteady camping table. Not to mention, light packers would scoff at the weight of my coffee gear — a necessary sacrifice to avoid instant coffee. Savoring high-quality joe in the open air feels special, though, hence why I bring a coffee-making setup every time.

Finally, I’ve found the easiest option: The MiiR Pourigami. Put together, the pyramid-shaped dripper fits atop any trusty travel mug. Taken apart, this Miir Pourigami resembles a card holder, slim enough to fit into my pants pocket. It functions like other pour-over setups, meaning I can still dial in tasting notes. If you’re like me and think about coffee no matter the circumstances, this nifty setup lets you play barista in any environment.

A look at the Miir Pourigami 

Advertisement

Right out of the box, the Pourigami looks sleek. Disassembled, the brewer consists of three thin stainless-steel trapezoids. I can’t imagine the pieces bending or chipping — crucial, as I’m prone to breaking camping equipment. Handily, the dripper stores flat, occupying a rectangular size smaller than 10 by 16 centimeters. Weighing just shy of 8 ounces, the brewer isn’t featherweight, but it offers great portability nevertheless. Contained in an unassuming synthetic case, the Pourigami seamlessly fits into any bag.

Honestly, I’m terrible at paper origami, but assembling this brewer into the pyramidal shape is a breeze. It only takes me about 20 seconds to slip the three indents into the respective slots — there’s no confusion to the construction. The completed dripper holds steady without a wobble and comes apart just as easily. 

Put together, the interior forms a triangular pyramid shape that can accommodate any #2 cone-shaped filters. I find that Miir’s own filters, available for purchase online function most reliably, creating steady streams without slipping. Not to mention, the brand’s paper-based filters are compostable, a small but satisfying environmental win. A compatible filter is easy to find, making the Miir Pourigami simple to set up and get to brewing.

Brewing with the Pourigami

If you’ve used pour-over vessels like a V60, Chemex or a Kalita Wave, the Miir Pourigami is familiar territory. The dripper requires a hot water source, the aforementioned paper filter, and a cup or carafe to catch the coffee. A kitchen scale and thermometer help brew with utmost accuracy, but I’ve produced solid cups while eyeballing proportions outdoors.

It’s best to follow a brewing ratio to extract the most out of the brewer, especially when familiarizing yourself with its flow. The Miir brand suggests 21 grams for single-origin beans and 23 grams for blends, each extracted with 300 milliliters of water. Using water heated to 90 degrees Celsius, I’ve found these proportions reliable, as long as extraction is completed by the three-and-a-half-minute mark.

Compared to my V60, the Miir Pourigami takes longer to drain, so a coarser grind helps keep water moving. As a result, the vessel is best suited for full-bodied cups of medium- and dark-roasted coffees. The grind quality is crucial: You’ll want a coarse yet uniform consistency. I’ve used both the portable MiiR Coffee Hand Grinder and the Baratza Encoreto great success; I would avoid utilizing a blade grinder for this setup, though. Away from home, I’ve asked coffee shops to grind beans — I request a consistency one click coarser than a V60. Pre-ground coffee is the most convenient way to brew on the move.

The Pourigami’s steep interior makes saturating coffee grounds easy – no need to carry a gooseneck kettle alongside. I’ve used jet-boil-powered camping kettles and even cooking pots to make excellent cups of coffee, making sure to use hot water that’s off the boil. As long as I’m timing the process, using the Miir Pourigami is undemanding.

What does Pourigami filter coffee taste like?

As with all pour-over coffee, the beans strongly influence the flavor. I’ve produced the best-tasting MiiR Pourigami cups using medium-roast blends — think grocery-store beans like Stumptown’s Holler Mountain Blend. Such bags respond well to the requisite coarser grind and are forgiving in outdoor scenarios. The Miir Pourigami translates gentle notes of acidity and sweetness, seldom leaning into burnt flavors. The coffee turns out light-bodied, similar to other filter setups, but I’ve never brewed a cup that tastes weak or watery. 

If there’s one downside to this dripper, it’s that the coffee occasionally turns out too acidic, a sign of under-extraction. For this reason, I avoid brewing delicate light roasts with the Pourigami — not that I’m packing fancy beans for camping anyway. A bold, balanced medium roast cup hits the spot after a night in a tent.

Is the Pourigami worth it?

At home, I’m not often assembling my Pourgami, instead settling on the trusty espresso machine or extracting delicate cups of V60. When I’m brewing outside of the house, though, the Pourigami is my top choice. In addition to camping, I’ll pack the brewer away in my suitcase for air travel, making the occasional cup on the go.

Before acquiring a model, I used to camp with a bulky plastic V60 dripper, which I inevitably fractured among camping equipment. The AeroPress certainly fares better in terms of durability, but it can be difficult to find a sturdy surface suitable for firm plunging. Compact and durable, the Miir Pourigami wins on logistical ease, making it easy to incorporate into a car-camping, backpacking, or even a bike-packing setup.

Sold for $35, it’s a thoughtfully designed coffee gadget that justifies the price point. The inventive design isn’t a trade-off for coffee quality. I’m happy to use the Pourigami several days in a row – the steel material is a breeze to clean. Whether at home or on the move, the brewer doesn’t occupy much space, making it a reliable favorite.

Memory shortage now a ‘full-blown demand issue’ for the smartphone market, says Counterpoint analyst.

The memory crunch has dragged down global smartphone shipments to the lowest second-quarter levels in 13 years.

Manufacturers producing cheaper gadgets saw their shares take the steepest drop after passing price hikes over to consumers. Analysts expect further price increases and a harsher squeeze for memory components.

“The global memory crisis has now overtaken every other factor as the single biggest drag on the smartphone industry. What started as a components issue last year is now a full-blown demand issue,” said Counterpoint senior analyst Shilpi Jain.

According to Counterpoint research, smartphone shipments tumbled 11pc year-on-year this quarter globally, as memory suppliers prioritise DRAM and NAND for AI data centre needs over consumer electronics.

Entry-level and mid-tier devices faced repeated price hikes, forcing consumers to pivot to more expensive brands or pause device upgrades. Component shortages has rendered these cheaper devices “structurally unfeasible at previous price points”, Jain said. Smartphone prices are poised to jump by as much as 13pc this year.

According to the IDC, most Android vendors in China responded to the growing component costs by raising prices, which directly dampened consumers’ willingness to upgrade their devices.

Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo, leading manufacturers for cheaper electronics, each saw their shipments decline in double digits this quarter. Though, the three of them together still captured more than 40pc of the global smartphone shipment this quarter.

“Alongside the memory shortage, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East bumped up oil and shipping costs, further inflating smartphone prices,” said the Counterpoint analyst.

“This coincided with a broader macro squeeze, slower global growth, higher inflation and record-low consumer sentiment which hit price-sensitive buyers the hardest.”

Samsung remains the global lead, making extra gains this quarter to capture 24pc of the smartphone shipment share. The South Korean manufacturer held up well in India and the Middle East, supported by better product availability, fewer price hikes and aggressive summer promotions, Counterpoint found.

Apple, meanwhile, took the second position globally, capturing 20pc of the market – up from 17pc in the same quarter last year. The iPhone-maker was the only one to avoid smartphone price hikes during this quarter. However, analysts expect that to change in the near future.

Apple also performed well in China, where it saw sales grow in double digits. Alongside Apple, Huawei was the only major Chinese manufacturer to see positive growth in smartphone shipments.

Overall, shipments in the country declined by around 4.3pc year-over-year, marking the fifth straight quarter of decline.

According to the IDC, Huawei and Apple kept prices steady while the rest of the Android producers in China raised them. Plus, Apple’s early signalling of upcoming price increases pulled in more customers purchasing the iPhone 17 series sooner than they might have otherwise, the report found.

“Huawei and Apple held their prices steady while competitors were raising theirs, and that gave hesitant buyers a reason to go ahead and purchase in a quarter when most of the market was giving them a reason to wait,” says Arthur Guo, a research analyst for client devices research at IDC China.

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.

• Japan’s largest taxi operator confirms July 11 malware attack forcing shutdowns of its IT systems and disrupted dispatch and reservation services
• Nihon Kotsu isolated networks, notified authorities, and brought in third‑party experts; customers were advised to use alternative taxi apps during the outage
• No data leaks have been confirmed, but Nihon Kotsu warned it may disclose and notify affected parties if evidence of personal information exposure emerges

Japan’s largest taxi operator, Nihon Kotsu, hasconfirmed suffering a cyberattack which forced it to temporarily shut down parts of its IT infrastructure.

In a statement published on the company’s Japanese website, Nihon Kotsu said the attack took place in the early morning of July 11 – on a Saturday, when unnamed threat actors infected its devices with malware.

The Paramount Skydance takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery has finally landed in court, which raises the obvious question: where was this lawsuit months ago?

The Paramount Skydance takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery has already cleared a major federal hurdle, but 12 state attorneys general have now decided that combining Paramount, Warner Bros., HBO, CNN, CBS, Max, and Paramount+ under one corporate roof may not be great for competition. Imagine noticing the house is on fire after everyone has already picked paint colors.

On July 13, 2026, a coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The complaint argues that the nearly $111 billion transaction, including debt, would reduce competition in theatrical film distribution, basic cable programming, streaming, and the broader entertainment market.

We have covered this story from the start, beginning with Netflix’s original agreement to acquire Warner Bros., HBO, and HBO Max, followed by Paramount’s hostile bid, the Ellison-backed bidding war, and Paramount eventually winning after Netflix stepped aside. Back in February, we noted that Paramount winning the bid was not the end of the story. Regulatory scrutiny, debt, politics, and the future of HBO, CNN, Warner Bros., Paramount+, and Max were always going to remain part of the plot. Nobody said Hollywood consolidation came with a clean third act.

What the Lawsuit Claims

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. The states are asking the court to prevent Paramount from acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery. If Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery try to close the deal before the case is resolved, the states have warned they may seek a temporary restraining order.

The complaint argues that the merger would combine two of the nation’s five major film distributors and two of the five major owners of basic cable channels. According to the filing, the combined company would leave four companies controlling more than 85 percent of wide-release theatrical films in the United States, while the merged Paramount Warner Bros. entity and Disney would control 59 percent of U.S. basic cable.

The states also claim the merger would give the combined company control of more than 50 basic cable channels, creating greater leverage in carriage negotiations with cable and satellite distributors. In plain practical terms: fewer companies owning more essential content usually means distributors have less negotiating room, and consumers eventually get invited to pay for the party.

The lawsuit also focuses heavily on theaters. The states argue that with fewer film distributors competing for screens, theaters could face worse revenue splits, stricter limits on discounts and complimentary tickets, fewer new releases, and less incentive for studios to invest in a broad theatrical slate.

Paramount’s Response

Paramount has rejected the lawsuit and says the states are misreading the modern entertainment market. The company argues that the merger would create a stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms, especially Netflix, and that delaying the deal would hurt entertainment workers who have already been squeezed by changes in the business.

That is the core tension. The states are framing this as a competition problem. Paramount is framing it as a survival strategy.

Both arguments are not crazy. That is what makes this more interesting than the usual “company buys company, executives discover synergies, workers discover LinkedIn” story.

Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are legacy entertainment companies trying to compete against Netflix, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, and Disney. But the way they propose to do that is by combining two historic studios, two major streaming platforms, CNN, CBS, HBO, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, TNT, MTV, HGTV, BET, Discovery Channel, Pluto TV, and more under one roof.

Netflix Is Still in the Room

Netflix may have stepped away from the Warner Bros. bidding war, but it remains central to the story. Paramount’s defense depends heavily on the idea that the combined company would be better equipped to challenge Netflix and the other tech-driven streaming giants. The states, meanwhile, argue that reducing the number of major film and cable owners is still harmful even if Netflix remains the biggest streaming target.

The timing is also interesting. Netflix reports Q2 2026 financial results on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at approximately 1:01 p.m. Pacific Time, with a live video interview scheduled afterward.

That earnings report lands after a rough stretch for Netflix’s stock. Recent market coverage has noted that NFLX has lost nearly 24 percent over the past three months ahead of its Q2 results. So while Paramount wants to paint Netflix as the untouchable giant, Wall Street has been reminding everyone that even the 800-pound gorilla occasionally slips on its own banana peel.

That does not weaken Paramount’s broader argument that Netflix is still the streaming benchmark. It does complicate the idea that every legacy media company must become enormous overnight to survive.

Is This About Antitrust or Politics?

The lawsuit is formally an antitrust case. The political pattern is still hard to ignore.

All 12 plaintiff attorneys general are Democrats: California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. No Republican attorney general joined the lawsuit.

The governor breakdown is slightly different. Eleven of the 12 plaintiff states currently have Democratic governors. Nevada is the exception, with Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo.

That does not automatically make the lawsuit partisan theater. State attorneys general often pursue antitrust cases for policy reasons, economic reasons, consumer protection reasons, and, yes, political reasons. Sometimes all of the above sit in the same conference room and pretend they came separately.

But the political backdrop matters. The Justice Department under President Donald Trump’s administration cleared the deal in June without requiring divestitures, while Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general continued to signal concern. Criticism over political influence has largely fallen along party lines, with Democratic officials questioning whether federal regulators gave the deal enough scrutiny.

Then there is CNN. Any deal that puts CNN under the same corporate structure as CBS and Paramount under David Ellison was always going to attract political attention. Pretending otherwise would require a level of innocence normally reserved for Hallmark movies and first-time streaming subscribers.

Paramount Has Cleared Some International Hurdles

Paramount also has a fair point when it argues that the deal is not being rejected everywhere. The company has received regulatory or competition clearances in several international markets, including Australia, China, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, and North Macedonia. It has also received foreign-direct-investment approvals in countries including Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, Czechia, New Zealand, Italy, France, and Romania.

That does not mean the transaction is home free. Reviews remain active in major markets, including the European Union and the U.K., where regulators have been looking at competition, media plurality, foreign investment, and the potential impact of combining HBO Max, Paramount+, CNN International, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and other services under one corporate roof.

So yes, Paramount can accurately say the deal has cleared some meaningful international hurdles. But the lawsuit from 12 U.S. states, along with continuing U.K. and European reviews, makes it clear that approval is still very much a moving target.

The California Exit Threat

One of the more aggressive subplots involves Paramount possibly leaving California.

Semafor reported on Monday that advisers close to David Ellison have urged him to consider moving Paramount’s corporate headquarters and reallocating some of the company’s planned spending outside California if Bonta sued to block the deal. The same report stressed that no decision has been made and that the idea may be brinkmanship.

Texas is the obvious political shorthand here because major companies including Chevron, Oracle, and Tesla have already moved headquarters out of California and toward Texas in recent years. But the more immediate production option mentioned in the reporting is New Jersey, where Paramount already signed a major lease at 1888 Studios in Bayonne.

That is where the story gets awkward. New Jersey is one of the 12 states suing to block the deal.

So if Paramount was hoping to use New Jersey as part of a “California is hostile, we are moving somewhere friendlier” argument, Trenton just walked into the room holding a legal complaint and gave studio developers, local contractors, and Monmouth County homeowners one more reason to check Zillow with mixed emotions.

What About Paramount’s Bayonne Studio Plans?

Paramount signed a minimum 10-year lease for more than 285,000 square feet at 1888 Studios in Bayonne in October 2025. The larger 1888 Studios project is planned as a 1.5 million to 1.6 million square foot production campus on the Bayonne waterfront, with 23 soundstages and major production support facilities.

There is no evidence right now that Paramount is walking away from that lease or that the lawsuit directly jeopardizes the Bayonne project. That needs to be stated clearly.

But future expansion is a fair question. If Paramount is rethinking where to place corporate offices, production spending, and future studio commitments, the lawsuit complicates New Jersey’s pitch. The state still has generous film and digital media tax incentives, and Bayonne remains a serious production play. But joining a lawsuit against Paramount’s biggest strategic deal is not exactly how one usually sends a fruit basket or box of Taylor Ham.

Netflix Fort Monmouth Keeps Moving

The New Jersey production story does not begin and end in Bayonne.

Netflix Studios Fort Monmouth is moving forward on the Jersey Shore. Officially, Netflix celebrated a construction milestone on June 23, 2026, with the installation of the final structural beam on Stages 3 and 4. The $1 billion project spans more than 292 acres across Oceanport and Eatontown and is planned to include 12 soundstages totaling nearly 500,000 square feet. Phase 1A remains on track for summer 2027, with Phase 1B targeted for fall 2028.

From a local perspective, the project looks very real. I live about two miles away and drive through the area a few times a week as a shortcut home. Three of the soundstages on the eastern side of the property appear to be in an advanced stage of construction.

The broader point is that New Jersey has become a serious production battleground. Netflix is building at Fort Monmouth. Paramount has leased space in Bayonne. Lionsgate has been part of the Newark studio conversation. New Jersey has been openly trying to become a major East Coast production hub. This lawsuit may not stop any of that, but it does make the politics a lot messier.

What This Means for Viewers

For consumers, the biggest questions are not about corporate headquarters or which governor gets to cut a ribbon. The real concern is what this deal could mean for the services, studios, news divisions, theaters, and catalogs people actually watch.

If Paramount+ and HBO Max eventually combine, prices could rise, bundles could change, and another major entertainment library could end up under one corporate roof. Theatrical output is another major concern. Fewer major studios can mean fewer wide releases, less negotiating leverage for theaters, and less incentive to take risks on films that are not obvious franchise plays.

There is also the question of what happens to Warner Bros. catalog titles, HBO, CNN, CBS News, Paramount Pictures, and physical media. Will those assets be treated as distinct creative and editorial brands, or simply as inventory to be optimized? The lawsuit does not answer those questions, but it does slow the process and force Paramount to defend the deal in court after already clearing a major federal hurdle.

The Bottom Line

The 12-state lawsuit is the most serious legal threat yet to Paramount’s Warner Bros. Discovery takeover. It does not guarantee the deal will collapse, but it could delay closing, increase pressure on Paramount, and force more public scrutiny of how much media power one company should hold.

Paramount’s best argument is that legacy Hollywood needs scale to compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, and Disney. The states’ best argument is that solving one competitive problem by creating a larger concentration problem does not magically become consumer-friendly because a streaming app is involved.

And then there is the politics. All 12 attorneys general suing are Democrats, the Trump Justice Department already cleared the deal, and CNN sits right in the middle of the transaction like a neon sign blinking “this will be normal.” Sure it will.

If Paramount really wants to move more production or corporate power out of California, New Jersey and Texas will both be part of the conversation. But New Jersey’s participation in the lawsuit makes that idea more complicated, especially with Paramount already attached to Bayonne and Netflix racing ahead at Fort Monmouth.

Hollywood consolidation was already messy. Now it has federal court filings, state politics, Netflix earnings week, and a possible headquarters fight.

Related Reading: