Apple just might make a big aesthetic splash with its debut foldable. A new leak has added more shape to Apple’s long-rumored foldable iPhone, and this time the focus is on thickness. Renders shared by South Korean tipster yeux1122 on Naver, reportedly sourced from an Apple casing supplier, show the device with a folded body thickness of about 9.23mm. That is slimmer than the roughly 9.6mm figure mentioned in earlier rumors.

The renders also point to a maximum thickness of about 13mm when the camera area is included. That would make the camera module a major part of the phone’s profile, even if the folded body remains surprisingly thin for a book-style foldable. The same leak also repeats earlier claims that Apple is preparing two color options, silver and black.

Just how thin are we talking about here?

For comparison, Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 7 measures 8.9mm when folded and 4.2mm when unfolded. That would still make Samsung’s current foldable slightly thinner in its folded form, but the leaked figure would place the iPhone Fold surprisingly close to a well-established product.

Honor’s Magic V6 and the Oppo Find N6 also fall in the same slimness ballpark as their Samsung rival, and soon, Apple, as well. Samsung’s rumored Galaxy Z Fold 8 Wide has also been tipped at 9.8mm folded and 4.3mm unfolded, which would make Apple’s first-ever foldable iPhone thinner, at least before accounting for the camera bump.

What else is on the table?

Reports around Apple’s foldable have pointed to a book-style design with a 5.5-inch outer display and a 7.8-inch inner screen, giving it a tablet-like layout when opened. Another recent claim from Weibo leaker Instant Digital suggested that Apple may include the Camera Control button despite the slim frame.

On the software front, it could borrow some multi-tasking tricks from iPadOS, but don’t expect any functional fireworks like Stage Manager appearing on the foldable. Pricing is still unconfirmed, but current reports have suggested a starting price above $2,000. Apple is reportedly targeting a September 2026 introduction for the iPhone Fold. Availability may be limited at first, and the device could ship later than the iPhone 18 Pro models.

Theo Baker is graduating from Stanford this spring with something most seniors don’t have: a book deal, a George Polk Award that he received for his investigative reporting as a student journalist, and a front-row account of one of the most romanticized institutions in the world.

His forthcoming How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was excerpted Friday in The Atlantic and based on that alone, I can’t wait to see the rest. The only question worth asking is the same one Baker himself might be too close to answer, which is: Can a book like this actually change anything? Or does the spotlight, as it always seems to, send more students racing to the place?

The parallel that keeps coming to my mind is “The Social Network.” Aaron Sorkin wrote a film that was an indictment in many ways of the particular sociopathy that Silicon Valley tends to reward. What it seemingly did was make a generation of young people want to be Mark Zuckerberg. The cautionary tale became a recruitment video. The story of the guy who — in the movie, at least — steamrolled his best friend on his way to billions didn’t discourage ambition; it further glamorized it.

Judging by the excerpt, Baker’s portrait of Stanford is far more granular. He talks with hundreds of people to roundly describe the “Stanford inside Stanford.” “You sort of join it freshman year or you don’t,” one student tells Baker. It’s an invite-only world where venture capitalists wine and dine 18-year-olds, where “pre-idea funding” worth hundreds of thousands of dollars gets handed to students before they’ve had an original idea, and where the boundary between mentorship and predation is nearly impossible to discern. (The shame of chasing teenage founders, if it ever existed, is gone; not chasing them is no longer an option for most VCs.) Steve Blank, who teaches the school’s legendary startup course, tells Baker that “Stanford is an incubator with dorms,” which is not meant as a compliment.

What’s new isn’t that this pressure exists but that it has been fully internalized. There was a time, maybe 10, maybe 15 years ago, when Stanford students felt the weight of Silicon Valley expectation pressing down on them from outside. Now, many of them arrive on campus already expecting, as a matter of course, to launch a startup, to raise money, to become rich.

I think about a friend — I’ll call him D — who dropped out of Stanford a few years ago, partway through his first two years, to launch a startup. He was barely past his teens. The words “I’m thinking of take a leave of absence” had just escaped his mouth before the university, by his own account, gave him its cheerful blessing to dive full bore into the startup. Stanford doesn’t fight this anymore, if it ever did. Departures like his are an expected outcome.

D is now in his mid-twenties. His company has raised what would register in any normal context as an astonishing amount of money. He almost certainly knows more about cap tables, venture dynamics, and product-market fit than most people learn in a decade of conventional careers. By every metric the Valley uses, he’s a success story. But he also doesn’t see his family (no time), has barely dated (no time), and the company, which keeps growing, doesn’t seem inclined to provide him with that kind of balance anytime soon. He is already, in some meaningful sense, behind on his own life.

This is the part that Baker’s excerpt hints at without fully landing on, maybe because he’s still inside it himself. The costs of this system aren’t just distributed in the form of fraud — though Baker is direct about this, describing it as pervasive and largely consequence-free. The costs are also more personal: the relationships not formed, the ordinary milestones of early adulthood traded away in exchange for a billion-dollar vision that, statistically, almost certainly won’t materialize. “100% of entrepreneurs think they’re visionaries,” Blank tells Baker. “The data say 99% aren’t.”

What happens to the 99% at age 30? At age 40? These aren’t questions Silicon Valley is set up to answer, and they’re certainly not questions Stanford is about to start asking.

Baker also surfaces something that Sam Altman articulates best. Altman — OpenAI CEO, former Y Combinator head, precisely the kind of person these students aspire to become — tells Baker that the VC dinner circuit has become an “anti-signal” to the people who actually know what talent looks like. The students doing the rounds, performing founder-ness for rooms full of investors, tend not to be the real builders. The real builders, presumably, are somewhere else, building things. The performance of ambition and the thing itself are increasingly hard to tell apart, and the system that was ostensibly designed to find genius has gotten very good at finding people who are good at seeming like geniuses.

How to Rule the World sounds like exactly the right book for this moment in time. But there’s a certain irony in the strong likelihood that this critically minded book about Stanford’s relationship to power and money will be celebrated by the same class of people it critiques, and — if it does well (it has already been optioned for a movie) — used as further evidence that Stanford produces not just founders and fraudsters but important writers and journalists, too.

For those first venturing into sailing, it can be overwhelming since the experience is thick with jargon and skills that don’t often show up in life ashore. With endless choices, including monohulls versus catamarans, fiberglass versus wood, fractional versus masthead rigs, and sloops versus ketches, a new sailor risks doing something like single-handing a staysail schooner when they should have started on a Bermuda-rigged dinghy without a spinnaker. Luckily, there are some shortcuts to picking up the hobby, like the venerable Sunfish or Hobie ships. It’s also possible to build a simple sailing vessel completely out of materials from a local hardware store, as [Cumberland Rover] has been demonstrating.

[Cumberland Rover] has a number of homemade vessels under his belt, from various kayaks and rowboats. His latest project is a 12-foot rowboat, which has the option to add a mast and sail. The hull is made from two 1×12 pieces of lumber, bent around a frame and secured. Plywood makes the bottom, and a few seats finish out the build. He’s also using standard hardware to fasten everything together, which helps with maintenance. It came in handy when he recently added some height to the bow of the boat to improve seaworthiness.

For sailing, the mast is made out of two pieces of 2x lumber glued together and then worked into a more cylindrical shape. It’s unstayed, reducing complexity, and although he broke one in extremely high winds, it is more than strong enough for most of his sailing. The ship is gaff-rigged, with a square sail hoisted up the mast by a wooden spar. All of these design choices make it quick and easy to set the sail up when the wind is good or pack it away fast when it’s time to row.

Although there are paid plans available on his website, the methods used in the video show how simple it can be to get into rowing or sailing with a minimal cost. You’ll still want to learn the basics of sailing before taking one of these out into open water. DIY speedboats are also possible and accessible as well, but there’s the added complexity of a motor here to think about, as well as registration requirements that often accompany powered craft.

X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, has officially launched its standalone messaging app, XChat, on iOS. The move marks a significant step in the company’s broader push to evolve beyond a traditional social network and into a more expansive communication ecosystem.

A Messaging App That Signals X’s Bigger “Everything App” Strategy

At launch, XChat brings a familiar but feature-rich messaging experience. Users can connect directly with their existing X contacts, send messages, share files, and make audio or video calls, along with participating in group chats.

The app also leans heavily into privacy-focused features. It supports disappearing messages, the ability to edit or delete messages for everyone in a chat, and even includes protections like blocking screenshots. X has also claimed that the app does not include ads or tracking mechanisms, positioning it as a cleaner alternative to traditional messaging platforms.

This launch is important because it reflects a broader strategic shift. X is no longer trying to keep everything inside a single app. Instead, it is beginning to break out core features – like messaging – into standalone experiences. That approach aligns with Elon Musk’s long-stated ambition to turn X into an “everything app,” similar to China’s WeChat, but executed through a modular ecosystem.

Advertisement

Why This Move Matters In The Messaging Landscape

The messaging space is already crowded, dominated by platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal. X entering this space with a standalone app signals that it wants to compete more directly, rather than treating messaging as a secondary feature.

What makes XChat notable is its integration with the existing X network. Unlike most messaging apps that rely on phone numbers or contact syncing, XChat leverages social graph connections already built within the platform. That lowers friction for users and could make onboarding significantly easier.

At the same time, the app’s privacy claims and features suggest X is trying to position itself as a more secure alternative. However, questions remain about how robust those protections are, especially compared to established end-to-end encrypted platforms.

Why You Should Pay Attention As A User

For users, XChat introduces a different way to think about messaging. Instead of being tied to phone numbers, communication becomes account-based, similar to social media interactions but in a private setting.

Advertisement

This could simplify how you connect with people online, particularly if you already use X regularly. It also means fewer apps competing for attention, as conversations tied to your social presence move into a dedicated space.

However, it also raises practical considerations. Adopting a new messaging app requires network effects – your contacts need to be there. Without that, even feature-rich apps struggle to gain traction.

What Comes Next For XChat

The iOS launch is just the beginning. Reports suggest that an Android version is expected soon, which will be critical for broader adoption. X is also restructuring other parts of its platform, including shutting down underperforming features like Communities, as it shifts focus toward messaging and AI-driven experiences.

If successful, XChat could become a central pillar of the platform’s future. If not, it risks becoming another entrant in an already saturated market. Either way, the direction is clear. X is no longer just a place to post – it wants to be where conversations happen.

Advertisement

Good morning! Let’s play Connections, the NYT’s clever word game that challenges you to group answers in various categories. It can be tough, so read on if you need Connections hints.

What should you do once you’ve finished? Why, play some more word games of course. I’ve also got daily Strands hints and answers and Quordle hints and answers articles if you need help for those too, while Marc’s Wordle today page covers the original viral word game.

I was using the iPhone 17 when I picked up my iPhone 16 to look at an older video, and it led to an epiphany: nothing about the iPhone 16 felt any worse than its successor. It wasn’t any slower, the design didn’t feel dramatically different, and nothing about it screamed “old” or “outdated.” That feeling stuck with me for a few days.

Over the years, the smartphone industry has trained us to treat one year of upgrades (no matter how incremental) as something that should feel significant, but upon switching back to the iPhone 16 after using the iPhone 17 for over six months, I realized that wasn’t the case. We’re so stuck in finding the smallest changes in the spec sheet that we forget that a company’s product cycle isn’t a measure of obsolescence.

A phone that doesn’t feel outdated next to its predecessor

The moment I picked up the iPhone 16 (which was resting without a case in my drawer), I couldn’t help but notice its cool aluminum frame and the matte glass back in the Teal finish, and it brought a smile to my face. The next moment, I took out my iPhone 17 and held it side-by-side. 

If you leave out the larger form factor (due to a bigger screen) and the different finishes, the iPhone 16 shares all its design elements, including the Dynamic Island on the front, the vertical camera layout on the back, and the buttons (including the Action button and Camera Control), with the iPhone 17.

And that’s when it hit me: the iPhone 16 doesn’t feel all that old, even next to its successor. 

The chip gap isn’t as wide as the ProMotion display makes it feel

Over the next couple of days, I started using the phone as my daily driver, just to check whether there were any noticeable differences in the performance, and I came to a rather nuanced conclusion.

Had Apple equipped the iPhone 16 with a 120Hz ProMotion display, it would have felt as smooth as the newer iPhone 17. This is the reason why the Pixel 10a feels so smooth despite featuring a less powerful chipset. 

But even otherwise, in third-party apps that only support a 60Hz refresh rate, it was quite hard to differentiate between the phones in terms of performance (unless you time the export of the same video via a third-party editing app).

The A19 chip on the iPhone 17 is barely 8-10% faster than the A18 chip on the iPhone 16; that’s a difference most users will never notice with their day-to-day tasks.

4,000 photos later, the main camera still holds its ground

More importantly, both the phones fully support iOS 26 and run all the available Apple Intelligence features. Another major similarity between the phones is their primary camera.

I’ve taken over 4,000 photos and 800 videos on my iPhone 16 as a daily driver for months, and the 48MP holds up really well, even next to those from the iPhone 17. Color science and skin tones remain accurate, dynamic range rarely disappoints, plus there’s plenty of detail in pictures. 

I’d say that the 12MP ultrawide and the 12MP selfie cameras sound like the iPhone 16’s weak spots, especially since Apple upgraded the camera hardware on the iPhone 17, but how much it bothers you depends on how frequently you use these cameras and for what purposes. What’s more important is that the iPhone 16 has a Camera Control button, something that I personally find very useful. 

All-day battery and MagSafe convenience at an affordable price 

The battery on my iPhone 16, even though it’s at 91% battery health, still lasts an entire day on a charge, and supports the same MagSafe accessories (wireless powerbank and wallet) I use with my iPhone 17. All these things made me realize how Apple’s latest iPhone is based on some useful but mostly incremental updates, and how the overall experience could feel awfully similar, barring a few things. 

All these realizations, along with the fact that the iPhone 16 currently costs $699 for the baseline variant with 128GB of storage, made me arrive at a solid conclusion: the iPhone 16 isn’t last year’s baseline iPhone, but it’s this year’s most sensible iPhone, for most users who’re aware of the compromises and aren’t bothered by them. 

If you’re upgrading from an ancient Android phone, or an iPhone 11 or iPhone 12, the iPhone 16 could strike the perfect balance between a meaningful and affordable upgrade.  

That said, there are some solid reasons why you still might want to upgrade to the iPhone 17. If a smoother 120Hz display, a brighter screen, better ultrawide and front cameras, and a longer-lasting battery matter to you, and you’re upgrading from a relatively newer model, like the iPhone 14 or iPhone 15, the iPhone 17 could provide a better sense of upgrade for you. 

Strands is the NYT’s latest word game after the likes of Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections – and it’s great fun. It can be difficult, though, so read on for my Strands hints.

Want more word-based fun? Then check out my NYT Connections today and Quordle today pages for hints and answers for those games, and Marc’s Wordle today page for the original viral word game.