The San Francisco-based start-up is building networked autonomous vehicles that operate above and below the surface of the ocean, ‘Earth’s last frontier’.

Ulysses, founded in Dublin in 2023 by Akhil Voorakkara, Will O’Brien, Jamie Wedderburn and Colm O’Brien – who say they are united by a shared belief “that the ocean is the planet’s most strategic and underserved domain” – will use newly acquired funding to build “the Ocean company”.

A $38m Series A round was led by Andreesen Horowitz (A16Z), while the San Francisco-based Ulysses also announced an $8m seed round led by Pebblebed, bringing total new funding to $46m. Other investors included Booz Allen Hamilton, Harpoon and Genius Ventures, while existing investors Lowercarbon Capital, ReGen Ventures and Superorganism have also followed with further investment.

“The founders, Akhil, Will, Colm and Jamie, came to this country and created something we had been struggling to produce: a small, autonomous underwater vehicle that aims to outperform the primes at a fraction of the cost,” a statement from A16Z said. “We’re excited to partner with the Ulysses team for their Series A.”

Will O’Brien, in a LinkedIn post, said: “We are building The Ocean Company. The ocean is 71pc of the planet. But it is less explored than Mars, and full of secrets, waiting to be told. It is the backbone of global defence. Home to the critical infrastructure that powers our world. And the key to the health of our planet. This frontier needs technology to protect and steward it. We are building it.”

Ulysses describes its mission as “building the operating system for the ocean: massive, networked fleets of low-cost, autonomous vehicles that operate above and below the surface”, using hardware “trusted to function in the harshest maritime environments  – whether restoring seagrass meadows, securing critical infrastructure or conducting persistent [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] in contested waters”.

Players like the US Navy have recognised the potential and come calling. Ulysses is now actively recruiting for engineers and scientists at their San Francisco base.

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.

Everyone said AI would kill apps. Instead, new app launches are soaring.

According to a new analysis from market intelligence provider Appfigures, worldwide app releases in the first quarter of 2026 were up 60% year-over-year across both Apple’s App Store and Google Play. That percentage was an even higher 80% when looking at the iOS App Store alone. In April 2026 so far, the total number of app releases is up 104% across both stores compared to the same time last year, and up 89% on iOS.

As Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, Greg “Joz” Joswiak, quipped In a recent interview: rumors of the App Store’s death in the AI age “may have been greatly exaggerated.”

These findings come amid concerns that the rise of AI chatbots and agents would ultimately see users turning away from apps — a theory that’s already being floated by those in the industry, like Nothing CEO Carl Pei, who is focused on building a smartphone for the AI era. The New York Times also reported last year on the potential for new computing platforms to eclipse the smartphone, like smart glasses, ambient computing devices, or reimagined smartwatches with AI features.

OpenAI is even working on an AI hardware device with famed Apple designer Jony Ive.

But there’s another possibility, too: AI will make it easier for anyone to create apps, driving a rebirth of the App Store. The new app gold rush could be led by creators who have ideas but not the technical skills to design mobile software.

Appfigures’ data indicates that certain categories of apps are seeing more new releases than others.

Mobile games still account for most of the new app releases worldwide as of Q1 2026, as they have in prior years. But “productivity” apps have moved into the top five this year. The “utilities” category has also moved up to the number two slot, and the “lifestyle” apps category moved up from the No. 5 slot last year to now No. 3. Finally, “health and fitness”-style applications rounded out the top five categories.

The working hypothesis here is that AI-powered tools, like Claude Code or Replit, could be behind the surge of new launches. It also seems possible that we’re hitting some sort of tipping point in terms of AI usability, where it’s easy enough for people to leverage these tools to build their own desired mobile apps more quickly — or even build their first apps ever.

The explosion of new apps for Apple to review could also be behind some of the tech giant’s recent missteps. This week, Apple pulled the rewards app Freecash from the App Store for rules violations, after letting the app climb the store’s Top Charts and sit in the top five for months. Apple was also caught off guard by a malicious cryptocurrency app, a clone of Ledger Live, that drained $9.5 million in crypto from victims’ accounts.

While high-profile problems like this can generate bad PR for the App Store, the company still does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of blocking and rejecting dangerous or spammy apps. Apple’s most recent analysis from 2024 said the company had removed or rejected more than 17,000 apps for bait-and-switch violations that year; rejected more than 320,000 app submissions that were found to be spam, copying other apps, or misleading; and took action to prevent more than 37,000 potentially fraudulent apps from reaching users on the App Store.

Still, Apple pundits like John Gruber have long argued that the App Store needs a “bunco squad” of sorts that watches for scammy or fraudulent apps that are gaining in popularity or high-grossing.

If AI-assisted vibe coding turns out to be behind the recent surge of app releases, that need will only grow as more new apps flood the marketplace, not all of which will be benign.

I tried the battery version, which does require you recharge it every couple of weeks, but the wired-in version is the top recommendation on our guide to the Best Video Doorbells.

A Better Birdhouse

I had a new-to-me problem this spring: bird invasion. A little bird made a nest in my front-door wreath without us noticing. One evening, my sister opened the door, and the bird flew out of the nest and straight into our house. After a 30-minute battle to get it outside again (and keep my cat from eating it), it wasn’t until we saw the bird fly off the door again the next day that we realized it was calling our home its home, too.

If this is a common problem at your house, our resident bird-gear tester Kat Merck has a solution: a smart nesting box. Birdfy makes a few different smart bird feeders we like for bird-watching, and the Nest Duo is a birdhouse that lets you watch the birds while they nest inside of it. It’s a slim, attractive box that will add to your front yard’s style while also packing two solar-powered cameras (one facing the entrance, one focused inside) so you can bird-watch from multiple angles. It comes with different hole sizes to appeal to different species, metal predator guards to prevent chewing around the hole, and a remote control to reset or recharge the camera without disturbing your feathered neighbors.

Stylish Smart Lights

Govee

Outdoor Clear Bulb String Lights

I’ve liked Govee’s smart outdoor string lights before, usually for my holiday decor, and have previously recommended something similar with a bistro-light-like look that happened to be smart. These clear bulb string lights are part of Govee’s current lineup and have a contemporary twist with a triangle in the center instead of the wire filament. These are a fun option for outdoor lights you can enjoy on warm nights, and they can do every color and shade of white without looking as bulky as permanent outdoor lights. (Added bonus, these lights are also Matter compatible!)

Fresh Bulbs

Cync

Smart LED Light Bulb, PAR38

If you have light fixtures you want to remote-control, add an outdoor smart bulb. There are tons to choose from, and you can usually find one from any brand you already have at home. The only downside is that outdoor-rated smart bulbs are usually 4.75-inch-diameter PAR38-style bulbs, so they’re best for downward-facing floodlights on your porch or balcony. They’ll likely be too big to fit in a wall fixture as a replacement for a normal-sized bulb. Don’t just grab any smart bulb—not all are outdoor-rated. Check for mentions of outdoor use and waterproof ratings to make sure they’re safe to use. I’m a big fan of Cync bulbs, and the brand has an outdoor version of the Cync Full Color bulbs I like to use indoors. You’ll be able to add fun colors as well as shades of white, so you can turn the porch a spooky orange or red for Halloween, pink for Valentine’s Day, or the colors of your favorite sports team on game day.

Remote-Controlled Garage

If your garage is the centerpiece of your home’s curb appeal, you can control it as easily as a smart door by adding a smart controller. You can do two different styles: I have the Chamberlain MyQ professionally installed smart garage opener, which means the device that controls my garage has these smarts built into it (plus a camera, but I find it doesn’t work great with how far the device is from my Wi-Fi router), or you can get a smart garage controller that can add smart features onto an existing garage door. Both let you check whether the garage is open or closed and operate it remotely, and you can add a video keypad that doubles as a video doorbell and can let you open or close the garage without your phone.

Smart Shades

The front of my home faces west, so it’s absolutely baking at the end of the day. What I need to add are some of our favorite smart shades to automate closing the shades on that side of the house at the right time of day. These also give your home a nice, cohesive look and immediate, controllable privacy from the outside world. WIRED reviewer Simon Hill recommends the SmartWings shades as his top picks, and Lutron’s Caseta shades if you’re looking for a more upgraded look.

Invisible Swaps

Looking to add some smarts without touching your existing setup? These switch-ups can make your front door and yard smart without being visible.

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

from the i’d-throw-my-computer-in-a-lake dept

We’ve been covering Brendan Carr’s censorial ambitions for a long time now. When Trump first picked him to chair the FCC, we warned people that the “free speech warrior” branding was a total sham. We later dug into the letter from a massive coalition of 80+ legal scholars, former FCC officials, and civil liberties groups detailing how Carr’s threats fly in the face of the First Amendment. Hell, just this morning Karl wrote about how Carr is still plotting to punish Jimmy Kimmel for mocking President Trump. Meanwhile, Carr has responded to the criticism with smirking emojis and culture-war memes on X, treating the whole thing as performative trolling for an audience of one.

But now, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere has published an open letter to Carr that is, frankly, one of the most devastating things I’ve read in years. And you really should go read the whole thing.

While Carr has mostly laughed off or ignored criticism of his many First Amendment violations, a letter from Corn-Revere (beyond the incredible prose of the letter) may hit a bit different given his stature within the First Amendment world. He has famously spent decades fighting in the trenches of the hardest, most politically uncomfortable First Amendment cases in the country. He represented Larry Flynt’s Hustler Magazine in the landmark Hustler v. Falwell case. He defended 2 Live Crew in the obscenity prosecution over As Nasty As They Wanna Be. He was counsel in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the Supreme Court case that effectively ended the FCC’s broadcast indecency regime. There are many more famous cases on his resume as well. This is someone who has spent his entire career defending speech, including in cases where it was genuinely offensive, deeply unpopular, and legally novel — because that’s what actual First Amendment commitment requires.

Oh, and he served as Chief Counsel to former FCC Chairman James Quello, so he knows how the FCC works from the inside.

So when this person tells Brendan Carr that he has betrayed his professed values, it carries a weight that Carr’s thumbs-down emojis can’t dismiss. The letter opens by pointing to the cautionary tale of Pam Bondi’s sudden firing as Attorney General:

Pam Bondi’s sudden and ignominious end as Attorney General is an important cautionary lesson about what happens to officials in this administration who over-promise in order to curry favor with the man they see as their boss, but who under-perform because of the limits of their authority.

Bondi promised the President she would prosecute his political enemies and failed miserably. The President rewarded her misplaced loyalty by denying her the graceful exit she sought, and instead fired her during a cross-town limo ride to watch a Supreme Court argument.

You have recently threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who air what you call “fake news,” which apparently includes any skeptical reporting about the war in Iran—something you know you cannot do legally.

My advice? Don’t get into a car with the president anytime soon.

That line sets the tone for everything that follows — a pointed warning from someone who’s been inside the institution and watched Carr’s transformation up close, not someone lecturing from a safe distance.

From there, Corn-Revere walks through exactly how Carr has become the precise opposite of the person he used to claim to be, quoting Carr’s own prior statements back at him:

As you may recall, shortly after you were named to head the Federal Communications Commission, I offered you some unsolicited advice in the form of an open letter entitled “A Plea for Institutional Modesty.” I suggested you should be circumspect in your assertions of power over broadcasters because “you don’t have as much power as you may think,” and flexing your regulatory muscles would conflict with both the Communications Act and the Constitution.

But as was clear from your initial acts as chairman and statements you made while campaigning for the job, your quest for political advancement overrode any previous commitment to First Amendment values. Gone were the days when, as a commissioner, you said things like “a newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them,” or that “inject[ing] partisan politics into our licensing process” is “a deeply troubling transgression of free speech and the FCC’s status as an independent agency.”

I never expected you would heed my gratuitous advice, but had no idea how thoroughly you would betray your former (professed) values. Instead, you emerged as a Bizarro World caricature of yourself, threatening owners of broadcast networks with summer stock Don Corleone impressions and devoting much of your social media activity to jawboning. It is as if you set out to prove that the real mental health crisis in America isn’t about teens on Instagram, but public officials on X.

If someone of BCR’s stature said any of that about me, I might log off the internet forever.

The letter is full of these moments where Corn-Revere combines deep legal knowledge with rhetorical skill matched by very few. Take his description of Carr’s reliance on the long-dormant “news distortion” policy — a regulatory zombie that only exists because the FCC never formally killed it off after eliminating the Fairness Doctrine decades ago:

The news distortion policy is like a phantom limb after the FCC amputated the fairness doctrine—it is not really there in substance, but you still seem to feel you can walk on it.

Your smug social media posts about how broadcasters will be held to their public interest obligations “on your watch” ignores this history, but your claim that “the opposition to holding broadcasters accountable to the public interest comes increasingly from those unfamiliar with longstanding FCC precedent” is even worse, because you know it is a bald-faced lie.

The letter also hammers home a point we’ve made repeatedly: the actual, messy consequences of Carr’s performative bullying, and shows how spectacularly it has backfired over and over again. After Carr strong-armed Disney into suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live:

Protesters picketed outside the gates of the Magic Kingdom, and an estimated 7.1 million people cancelled subscriptions to Disney-owned streaming services Disney+ and Hulu over the controversy—at about twice the usual churn rate.

ABC affiliate group owners Sinclair Broadcasting and Nexstar Media Group, who had business before the Commission, and who dutifully followed your demand, also lost money. It turns out that advertisers will not pay as much for spots during reruns of Celebrity Family Feud as during Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and Sinclair revenue dropped a reported 16 percent for the quarter. Nexstar also suffered losses, although the amounts were not disclosed.

The result? The suspension ended a little more than a week after it began and Kimmel triumphantly returned to the air to his highest viewership in over a decade. Kimmel’s comeback garnered 6.3 million broadcast viewers and roughly 20 – 26 million views on social media within 24 hours.

His attempt to manipulate equal opportunity rules to silence Stephen Colbert went even worse:

In January, you caused the FCC staff to reinterpret whether candidate interviews on certain talk shows were exempt from the equal opportunities rule, reversing decades of precedent.

You apparently were miffed that candidate interviews on certain TV shows did not trigger “equal time” requirements for their opponents under exemptions to the rule Congress adopted in 1959. Yet mysteriously, you said there was no need to apply your reinterpretation to conservative talk radio interviews.

But your main target of this move, Stephen Colbert, outsmarted you. He ridiculed your reinterpretation of the equal opportunities rule on air, and gleefully transmitted his interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico on The Late Show’s YouTube channel, which is beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction. The interview got over seven million views overnight (more than three times the on-air viewership), Talarico immediately received $2.5 million in campaign contributions, and won his primary.

Carr’s tactics are unconstitutional and tactically stupid. He keeps creating the very outcomes he’s supposedly trying to prevent — even as some less strong-willed news orgs buckle under his threats or pre-censor themselves to avoid his performative wrath.

But the part of the letter that really sticks with me is the section on Carr’s legal knowledge — specifically, the massive gap between what Carr actually knows and what he pretends to believe. Corn-Revere lays out the full chain of Supreme Court precedent cutting back on the FCC’s assumed authority over broadcast content — and then lands this:

But you know all this. Just as you know the FCC eliminated the fairness doctrine four decades ago, which is the regulatory progenitor of the “news distortion policy” you now love to cite (but only against broadcasts you perceive as critical of this administration).

This matters because it removes the escape hatch of ignorance. When politicians misstate the law, you can at least entertain the possibility they just don’t know better. Carr has been an FCC commissioner for nearly a decade. He practiced communications law. He knows what he’s doing is legally indefensible, and he knows his smug social media posts about “the law is clear” are, as Corn-Revere puts it, “a bald-faced lie.”

The letter ends by looking at what all of this does to Carr’s legacy, and it lands with a quiet brutality that no amount of trolling can deflect:

Your recent appearance before the Conservative Political Action Conference is a prime example, where you explained the president is “winning” against the media by listing several media personalities who have left their jobs, including (as you put it) “sleepy eyed Chuck Todd.” I should not have to remind you of this, but it is a poor and pathetic leader who measures “winning” by what he thinks he has destroyed rather than by what he has managed to build.

And:

As I wrote in my first open letter, selling out your (professed) values represents short-term thinking. I noted that “officials who have tried to muzzle the press for short-term political gain have not been treated well by history,” and “if I were your adviser, this is not how I would want history to remember you.” Now, to the extent you will be remembered at all, it will most likely be mainly as a South Park character.

I wish you had listened.

Carr will likely ignore this, much like he brushed off the coalition letter, his own past statements, and basically every legal guardrail he’s encountered since taking the chair. That’s his whole game — the threats, the memes, the emojis, the audition tape for whatever comes next.

Still, the record is there now, written by someone whose First Amendment track record makes Carr’s look like a cheap Halloween costume. And unlike Carr’s social media posts, this letter will age well.

There’s a lot more in the letter. Go read the whole thing. You won’t regret it, even if Brendan Carr would likely wish to censor it like he wishes to censor Jimmy Kimmel.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bob corn-revere, brendan carr, donald trump, fcc, free speech, jimmy kimmel, news distortion

True to its name, the new Sony Inzone H6 Air wired gaming headset is incredibly lightweight. Coming in at just 7oz / 199g (and only slightly more with the detachable cardioid microphone attached), it’s among the lightest gaming headsets on the market.

This isn’t just impressive on the spec sheet either; when paired with the wonderfully soft earcups, it easily creates one of the most comfortable headsets I’ve tested. You can wear the Sony Inzone H6 Air for hours at a time with minimal fatigue. In fact, it’s easy to forget that you’re even wearing it at all.