Tech
Section 230 Is Dying By A Thousand Workarounds, And Massachusetts Just Added Another One
from the pour-one-out-for-230 dept
We’ve been warning for a while now that Section 230 is dying by a thousand legal workarounds rather than a straightforward repeal, and the hits just keep coming. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how two jury verdicts against Meta in New Mexico and California should scare anyone who cares about the open internet, even if the instinct to cheer them on is understandable given how terrible Meta has been. Those verdicts adopted a legal theory that re-frames editorial decisions about how to present user-generated content as “product design” choices outside the scope of Section 230, functionally making the law irrelevant.
Now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gone even further. In a unanimous ruling in Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the state’s highest court has denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the state attorney general’s lawsuit, holding that Section 230 does not bar claims that Meta designed Instagram to be addictive to children, lied to the public about the platform’s safety, failed to properly age-gate underage users, and created a public nuisance. The court’s reasoning provides a clean, easily replicable template for any plaintiff anywhere to plead around Section 230, and it does so by mangling the statute’s text and ignoring key words while drawing a distinction between “content” and “content presentation” that collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.
Once again, since this always needs to be said in all of the articles about these rulings: Meta is a terrible company. It has spent years making terrible decisions. I don’t trust the company to make the right decisions even if only correct decisions were presented to it. Mark Zuckerberg deserves zero benefit of the doubt. But as I said last time, the legal theories being used to go after Meta here will not stay confined to Meta. They will be used against every website, every search engine, every forum, every email provider, and every small platform that makes any decision about how to present user-generated content. That’s what makes this ruling so dangerous.
Professor Eric Goldman, who has been tracking these cases more closely than perhaps anyone, put it bluntly:
This is not a good opinion for Section 230 on several dimensions.
First, as a state supreme court decision, it’s the final word for the Massachusetts state court system (unless the US Supreme Court intervenes). It provides a major beachhead for other courts to follow, both within Massachusetts and beyond.
Second, this court didn’t rely on the Lemmon “design defect” workaround. Instead, it said that the claim doesn’t relate to third-party content unless it’s based on the substance of the third-party content. This provides plaintiffs with another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting (even if they shouldn’t).
Third, as I explained, I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance.
That last point is the most important part of the whole ruling. The court has now handed plaintiffs’ lawyers a magic formula: just say you’re suing about the presentation of content rather than the content itself, and Section 230 vanishes. Goldman lays out the playbook:
Here’s how a plaintiff’s argument could look: “I’m not suing about the third-party content, I’m suing about the design choices that elevated that third-party content over others.” These are literally the same thing in my mind. If this argument works, Section 230 is dead because plaintiffs will always embrace that workaround.
Looking at the court’s actual reasoning, things get messy fast.
Massachusetts’ complaint alleged that Meta “engaged in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to induce compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in these unfair and deceptive practices.” Meta moved to dismiss on Section 230 grounds. The lower court denied the motion. Meta appealed.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court actually (correctly!) recognized that Section 230 provides immunity from being sued in the first place, not just a defense against paying up at the end. This matters procedurally, because immunity from suit means you get to appeal the denial of your motion to dismiss before trial — you don’t have to go through the whole expensive litigation process first and then appeal at the end. The court analyzed the language of Section 230(e)(3), and reached the right conclusion:
The plain meaning of “no cause of action may be brought” is that a suit may not be initiated in the first instance and the defendant cannot be forced to litigate the claim.
Great. The court got the procedural question right. Section 230 provides immunity from suit. Meta gets its interlocutory appeal. The whole point of Section 230, after all, has always been to get bad cases tossed early, before the ruinous expense of discovery and trial.
And then the court proceeded to deny the immunity anyway, meaning Meta now has to litigate the entire case on the merits despite supposedly having immunity from suit. The court gave Section 230 its proper procedural dignity with one hand and gutted it substantively with the other. Meta got to appeal early — and lost anyway. Now it faces full litigation on claims that Section 230 was designed to kill at the threshold. The outcome is a complete mess: the court has effectively turned “immunity from suit” into “the right to lose an appeal slightly faster.”
The heart of the court’s logic rests on a distinction between claims that impose liability based on the content of third-party information and claims that merely concern how that content is presented. To get there, the court engaged in a lengthy analysis of the phrase “treated as the publisher . . . of any information” in Section 230(c)(1), concluding that this phrase requires both a “dissemination element” and a “content element.” In other words, the court held that Section 230 only applies when a claim seeks to hold a platform liable for the substance of user-generated content it published — and that claims about design features like infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems target the how of publishing rather than the what, and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protection.
This ignores a long list of precedents — and the explicit statements of Section 230’s authors — establishing that the law was designed to protect platforms from being sued over any editorial decision-making, including how content is presented. To put this in perspective, it’s like saying that someone could sue, say, the evening news based on where they placed a story (top of the show or bottom?) and that the impact of how it was presented is somehow unrelated to the content itself. That makes no sense. But it’s the way this court has interpreted 230.
The court found that with respect to the unfair business practices claim:
The challenged design features (e.g., infinite scroll, autoplay, IVR, and ephemeral content) concern how, whether, and for how long information is published, but the published information itself is not the source of the harm alleged. Instead, the claim alleges that the features themselves induce compulsive use independent of the content provided by third-party users.
Meta tried to point out the obvious problem with this: without user-generated content, these design features don’t do anything harmful. Nobody’s getting addicted to infinite scroll through a feed of nothing. The court waved this away:
But the fact that the features require some content to function is not controlling; instead…to satisfy the content element, we look to whether the claim seeks to hold Meta liable for harm stemming from third-party information that it published. Here, the unfair business practices claim does not; the Commonwealth alleges that the features themselves prolong users’ time on the platform, not that any information contained in third-party posts does so. In this sense, the claim is indifferent as to the content published.
“Indifferent as to the content published.” No matter how many times courts (or media or politicians) make this claim, it never gets any more accurate. As I noted in my earlier piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll does nothing without content that makes people want to keep scrolling. The features and the content are inseparable. Saying the claim is “indifferent as to the content published” is a legal fiction, and everyone involved knows it.
Goldman makes this point through a newspaper analogy that’s worth quoting at length:
I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance. … As an analogy, consider a dead-trees newspaper’s decision to publish a story: it is equally part of the newspaper’s editorial prerogative and publication decisions to decide to publish the story at all and to decide if the story should appear on the A1 front page or some interior page; what size typeface to use for the story headline; whether the story runs all on the same page or continues on a later page; etc. As applied to Meta, the decision to vary the delivery timing of new third-party content items (as one example) is just as much of Meta’s publication decision-making process about publishing the third-party content as whether the item will be published at all.
The fallout here goes way beyond just Instagram. A search engine decides to rank certain results higher than others — that’s a “design choice” about content presentation, not about the content itself. A forum uses “newest first” sorting — design choice. An email provider’s spam filter decides what goes to your inbox — design choice. A blog allows comments and displays them in threaded format — design choice. Under this court’s reasoning, all of those are potentially outside Section 230’s protection, because they concern how content is presented rather than the content’s substance. Every editorial decision a website makes about the display, ordering, timing, or format of user-generated content is now potentially a “design” claim that evades Section 230.
Especially given that the whole premise of these lawsuits is that these “design choices” are engineered to “addict” users — a claim that none of the cases have actually established as a clinical matter. They show signs of companies trying to make users of their products like and use them more. Which is what basically every company does. It’s sort of the nature of business. Should a state AG be able to sue a restaurant because its food was too delicious and people ate too much of it? TV shows end on cliffhangers. Books have page-turning chapter endings. Are those addictive design features subject to state AG enforcement?
There’s another serious problem with the court’s statutory analysis that Goldman flagged, and it’s frankly embarrassing for any court to make, let alone a state supreme court. Section 230(c)(1) says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The court spent pages analyzing what “publisher” means, diving into common-law publisher liability, legislative history, and the Cubby/Stratton Oakmont story line. But as Goldman observed:
Worse, the court extensively analyzes the word “publisher” but doesn’t say a word about the companion “speaker” term that appears two words later in the statute. This is another indicator of results-oriented decision-making. No matter what the court says “publisher” means, if the court disregards one of the other 26 words that has direct relevance to its meaning, the court is failing its #1 job of reading the damn statute. This omission is extremely embarrassing for the court, and it thoroughly undermines the credibility of the court’s recitation of precedent.
Whatever narrow common-law meaning you might ascribe to “publisher,” the word “speaker” is right there, broadening the scope. The court just… pretended it wasn’t. When a court conducting what it claims is a careful “plain meaning” analysis of a 26-word clause of the statute at the center of the case manages to ignore one of the operative words, that’s more than a tell. As Goldman noted:
When courts decide to review a 1996 statute from scratch in 2026, after over a thousand Section 230 cases have been decided, that’s usually an indicator that they are engaging in results-oriented decision-making, they don’t like the precedent, and they need another way to reach a different result.
Then there are the deception claims, which the court dispatched with even less effort. Massachusetts alleged that Meta lied to the public about Instagram being safe and not addictive. The court held that because these were Meta’s own statements, Section 230 obviously didn’t apply — the statute only protects against liability for third-party content, and Meta’s PR statements are first-party speech.
That much is technically defensible as a Section 230 matter. But the underlying theory has its own problems that the court didn’t bother grappling with. What does it mean for a company to “deceive” the public by saying its product is “safe”? Almost nothing is 100% safe. Cars aren’t perfectly safe. Food isn’t perfectly safe. Playgrounds aren’t perfectly safe. As we’ve written about before, the social media moral panic has systematically confused risks with harms. Something can carry risks without every user being harmed, and a company saying it takes safety seriously is not a guarantee that no bad outcome will ever occur to any user. If “we prioritize safety” plus “something bad happened to a user” equals fraud, then every tech company, car manufacturer, pharmaceutical firm, and food producer in the country is perpetually liable for “deception.”
Goldman noted that there are “obvious puffery/opinion defenses that could apply here” but weren’t addressed in the Section 230 analysis. That’s true. But the more fundamental problem is that the court’s framing of the deception claims, combined with its evisceration of Section 230’s applicability to the design claims, means all four counts now proceed to full litigation. The “public nuisance” claim got even less analysis — a single footnote saying that because the other claims survive Section 230, so does the nuisance claim that’s based on them. Goldman rightfully calls out how weak this is:
I’ve previously complained before about courts’ complete undertheorizing of how and why public nuisance claims can apply to social media, and this court doesn’t do any better. In a footnote, here is the court’s entire discussion about Section 230’s application to the public nuisance claim: “Because we conclude that § 230(c)(1) does not bar counts I to III, we also conclude that it does not bar the Commonwealth’s public nuisance claim, which is predicated on the same allegedly unfair and deceptive practices in counts I to III.”
Put it all together and the picture for Section 230 is bleak.
A few weeks ago, juries in New Mexico and California found Meta liable using the “design defect” workaround — arguing that features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations are product design choices, not editorial decisions about third-party content. Those verdicts relied on the framework from Lemmon v. Snap, the somewhat problematic Ninth Circuit case that carved out a design-defect exception to Section 230, and which opened the floodgates to lawsuits like the ones we’re discussing here.
Somewhat oddly, the Massachusetts court explicitly declined to follow the Lemmon framework. It developed its own, different workaround: Section 230 only applies when a claim is based on the substance of third-party content, and claims about content presentation fall outside its scope. This is, as Goldman put it, “another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting.”
So we now have at least two distinct legal theories for pleading around Section 230, both blessed by courts, both available to any plaintiffs’ lawyer nationwide. And both accomplish the same thing: they take the editorial decisions that platforms make about user-generated content — the decisions that are the very heart of what Section 230 was designed to protect — and reclassify them as something else. “Design choices.” “Content presentation.” “Product features.” Call them whatever you want. The result is that Section 230 protects nothing that matters.
Goldman’s metaphor for all of this is apt:
Even if this opinion doesn’t outright eliminate Section 230 in Massachusetts, it’s a sign of how 230 workarounds keep proliferating, contributing to the swiss cheese-ification of Section 230. When the bubbles in the swiss cheese become too large, the cheese wedge lacks structural integrity and falls apart. That is where 230 is heading, if it’s not already there.
And this brings us to the thing that matters most, the thing that gets overlooked in every one of these cases: the procedural advantage of Section 230 was always the point. The whole reason Section 230 exists is to get bad cases thrown out early, before platforms have to spend millions in discovery and trial. Even if the First Amendment eventually protects many of the same editorial decisions, it does so at the end of expensive, protracted litigation. Section 230 was designed to get you out at the motion to dismiss stage.
And it wasn’t just the procedural advantage that mattered — it was the certainty. Platforms could make editorial decisions about how to present content knowing they were protected. That freedom meant editorial reasoning could lead, rather than legal risk-avoidance. A lawyer consulted before every design decision will never tell you to make the best call for users — only the least legally exposed one.
All of that has been thrown out the window. The certainty. The quick resolution. The ability for editorial reasoning to lead, rather than lawyerly concerns. These court rulings chip away at Section 230 bit by bit, and with it the ability for anyone to freely host content online without fear of getting sued.
The Massachusetts court’s ruling is the textbook example of how that benefit has been destroyed. The court correctly held that Section 230 provides immunity from suit — not just immunity from liability. It correctly allowed Meta to take an interlocutory appeal on exactly that basis. And then it ruled that the immunity doesn’t actually apply to any of the claims in the case. Meta exercised its right to an early appeal and got told it has to go litigate the whole thing anyway.
So what was the point? Meta got to go to the state supreme court, argue about immunity from suit, and then get sent right back to trial court to face all the same claims. Every future defendant in Massachusetts who raises a Section 230 defense will look at this ruling and know that the “immunity from suit” is a mirage. You get the appeal. You just don’t get the immunity, so long as the lawyers on the other side say the magic words. Which all of them will.
This is exactly the dynamic I warned about in my piece about the California and New Mexico verdicts. Even if these legal theories eventually get sorted out at the Supreme Court level, even if the First Amendment eventually provides some backstop, the practical reality is that Section 230’s core function — early dismissal of meritless cases — has been gutted. Every plaintiff’s lawyer now knows how to draft a complaint that survives a 230 motion to dismiss: just say “design” instead of “content.” Say “presentation” instead of “publication.” And you’re in. Discovery. Trial. Seven-figure legal bills. The whole show.
And smaller companies know this. Meaning they will either avoid hosting content altogether… or we’ll have the most powerful heckler’s veto in existence. Anyone who wants any third party content removed just needs to threaten a lawsuit using the magic words. And the mere threat of legal bills will mean the “smart” move will be to remove the content. All sorts of forums will suffer. Think about how Republican AGs will use this to argue that any site hosting LGBTQ+ content is causing harm. Think about the plaintiffs’ lawyers who will use any claimed “design” flaw as leverage for a shakedown settlement. If you thought that copyright trolling was bad, just wait until we see an entire collection of plaintiffs lawyers suing (or just threatening to sue while really seeking a settlement) any website they can claim made a “design choice” that leads to harm.
That’s the ballgame for small platforms. For independent forums. For startups trying to compete with the giants. Meta can absorb this. A new social media competitor cannot. Congress doesn’t need to repeal Section 230. The courts are doing it for them, one cleverly worded ruling at a time.
Filed Under: addiction, content presentation, design features, editorial freedom, massachusetts, section 230
Companies: meta
A new cybercrime platform called ATHR can harvest credentials via fully automated voice phishing attacks that use both human operators and AI agents for the social engineering phase.
The malicious operation is advertised on underground forums for $4,000 and a 10% comission from profits, and can steal login data for multiple services, including Google, Microsoft, and Coinbase.
Automation covers the entire telephone-oriented attack delivery (TOAD) stages, from luring targets over email to conducting voice-based social engineering and harvesting account credentials.
ATHR attack chain
According to researchers at cloud email security company Abnormal, ATHR is a complete phishing/vishing attack generator that offers brand-specific email templates, per-target customization, and spoofing mechanisms to make it appear as if the message originates from a trusted sender.
At the time of their analysis, the researchers observed that ATHR supported eight online services: Google, Microsoft, Coinbase, Binance, Gemini, Crypto.com, Yahoo, and AOL.
The attack starts with the victim receiving an email crafted to pass casual verification and even technical authentication checks.
“The lure is typically a fake security alert or account notification – something urgent enough to prompt a phone call but generic enough to avoid triggering content-based filters,” Abnormal notes in a report today.
Calling the phone number in the email routes the victim through Asterisk and WebRTC to AI voice agents driven by carefully crafted prompts that guide the victim through the data theft process.
The agents follow a multi-step script simulating a security incident. For Google accounts, they replicate the account recovery and verification process, using preset prompts that shape their tone, approach, persona, and behavior to mimic professional support staff.
Source: Abnormal
The purpose of the fake recovery process is to extract a six-digit verification code that allows the attacker to gain access to the victim’s account.
Although ATHR does offer the option to route the call to a human operator, the ability to use an AI agent is what sets it apart.
ATHR’s dashboard gives operators control over the entire process and real-time data for each attack per target.
Through the ATHR panel, they control email distribution, handle calls, and manage phishing operations, monitoring outcomes in real time and receiving logs containing the stolen data.
Source: Abnormal
Researchers at Abnormal warn that ATHR significantly reduces the manual effort for the operator and provides threat actors with an integrated platform that can handle all stages of a TOAD attack without the need to configure individual components.
This allows less technical attackers with no infrastructure to deploy automated vishing attacks from start to finish.
“The shift from a fragmented, manually intensive operation to a productized, largely automated one means TOAD attacks no longer require large teams or specialized infrastructure,” Abnormal warns.
With the rise of ATHR-like cybercrime platforms, the researchers expect vishing attacks to become more frequent and more difficult to distinguish from legitimate communications.
Defending against such attacks requires a different approach, since the lure emails carry no reliable indicators, are customized to authenticate correctly, and appear as valid notifications.
However, detection is possible by checking the communication behavioral patterns between a sender and a recipient, and identifying if similar lures containing a phone number reached the organization within a short time frame.
Abnormal researchers say that modeling normal communication behavior across the organization can help AI-powered detection flag anomalies before targets make a call.
Automated pentesting proves the path exists. BAS proves whether your controls stop it. Most teams run one without the other.
This whitepaper maps six validation surfaces, shows where coverage ends, and provides practitioners with three diagnostic questions for any tool evaluation.
Tech
Advance Paris NOVA Range Debuts at AXPONA 2026 with Vintage Design and a Touch of French Attitude
Advance Paris came to AXPONA 2026 with a clear message: the NOVA range is not here to play nice. These modular integrated amplifiers lean hard into a vintage aesthetic with unmistakable French flair, while taking a very un-American approach to features by making streaming and Bluetooth optional add-ons. At these prices, that decision is going to raise eyebrows. It also might be the point.
Playback Distribution made something else equally clear on the show floor. They are not just moving boxes in the United States and Canada. With their new joint venture with Fidelity Imports, they are positioning themselves as one of the most influential forces in high end audio distribution right now. That matters when a brand like Advance Paris shows up with a full ecosystem that includes the award-winning APEX line, but puts the spotlight squarely on NOVA.
Rob Standley, President and Co-Founder of Playback Distribution, made time early Saturday morning to walk through the lineup alongside the Advance Paris team. The pitch was straightforward. Distinctive design, flexible architecture, and a product strategy that does not follow the same tired playbook as every other streaming amp on the market. Brands that think this is just another European curiosity are about to get a lesson in what strong distribution and retail execution can actually do.
Modular French Integrated Amps with VU Meters That Tip Their Hat to American Vintage
If you’ve spent any time around French hi-fi, you know the extremes. It either strips everything back to the point of near invisibility or goes full statement piece. Devialet and Jadis lean into the theatrical side. Focal threads the needle with polished finishes, wood, and just enough flair. YBA and Lavardin go minimalist and call it a day.
Advance Paris does not follow any of those paths.
The NOVA series lands somewhere in between, but closer to the real world. Metal, glass, and just enough vintage influence to make it feel intentional rather than nostalgic. The VU meters are the tell. They are not there as decoration. They are a deliberate nod to American vintage gear, filtered through a French lens that knows exactly what it is doing.
And here is the part the marketing photos miss. In person, this gear has presence. The tubes glow with just enough warmth to draw your eye without turning the whole thing into a light show. People stop and look. Conversations start there.
The optional remote is absurd in the best way. Heavy, overbuilt, and clearly designed by someone who has no interest in cutting corners. No plastic, no flex. It feels like it belongs in a design exhibit at the Centre Pompidou, not tossed on a coffee table next to a pile of remotes you never use and left to die next to your
The modular pieces, including the streaming and Bluetooth modules, are handled the way they should be. Plug them in, they work, and then you forget about them. No drama, no clutter, no need to babysit the system. The focus stays on the amplifier, where it belongs.
The integrated amplifiers are built like serious hardware. Dense, rigid, and confidence inspiring without feeling overdone. Think AMX-56 Leclerc in terms of intent and execution. This is not lightweight gear.
Around back, the connectivity is extensive and thoughtfully laid out. Plenty of inputs and outputs for real world systems, and none of it feels like it was added just to appease low-life reviewers. It draws you in quietly, the way Catherine Deneuve might in a small café in the Marais, cigarette in hand, a half-finished pastry on the table. Effortless, composed, and fully aware of the room without acknowledging it. You catch yourself looking, then looking again. At some point you stop pretending you’re not interested.
Hybrid Integrated Amplifiers with DSP, Dual Subwoofer Support, and Modular Expansion
Both the A-i130 and A-i190 follow the same design approach: an integrated amplifier that also serves as the central hub for a full system. Each combines hybrid amplification, DAC, DSP-based processing, and subwoofer management in a single chassis, with optional modules available for expansion.
Both models use a hybrid topology with an ECC81 tube stage in the preamplifier section feeding a Class A/B power amplifier. Digital conversion is handled by an ESS9017 DAC operating in Quad mode, paired with a 4-channel DSP that manages EQ and room correction for left, right, and up to two subwoofers.
The A-i130 measures 43 x 17.5 x 35.1 cm (16.9 x 6.9 x 13.8 inches) and weighs 13.3 kg (29.3 lbs). The A-i190 is larger at 43 x19.2 x 45.4 cm (16.9 x 7.6 x 17.9 inches) and weighs 19 kg (41.9 lbs).
Both amplifiers support 2.1 and 2.2 configurations with adjustable crossover and independent subwoofer control, allowing proper integration of one or two subs in a two-channel system.
Connectivity is consistent across both models. Inputs include HDMI eARC, USB with DSD support, multiple optical and coaxial digital inputs, five RCA line-level inputs, and an MM phono stage with ground. Outputs include pre-out, record out, dual subwoofer outputs, and a 6.35 mm headphone jack.
Each model supports optional expansion via the A-NTC streaming module and A-BTC Bluetooth module. These add network streaming capabilities and bi-directional Bluetooth, including headphone transmission. Both are also compatible with the optional rotary remote control.
The A-i190 builds on this platform with a dual mono design using two toroidal transformers, increasing output to 190 watts per channel and improving channel separation. It also adds balanced XLR inputs and a balanced XLR pre-out, alongside the RCA pre-out. The phono stage is upgraded to support both MM and MC cartridges. These additions allow the A-i190 to integrate into more complex systems without requiring external components.
Advance Paris A-NTC and A-BTC Modules
The A-NTC streaming cartridge is Advance Paris’ modular approach to network audio. It can operate as a standalone streamer via its optical output, adding streaming to any system with a digital input, or it can be installed directly into the A-i130 or A-i190 for a fully integrated solution with no external box or cabling.
Platform support covers Spotify Connect, TIDAL Connect, Qobuz Connect, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, DLNA, and Roon, with connectivity over Ethernet or Wi-Fi. Resolution is capped at 24-bit/192 kHz, which aligns with most current streaming services and use cases.
The A-BTC module adds bi-directional Bluetooth 5.4 using the same expansion slot. It allows both receive mode (streaming from a phone or tablet to the amplifier) and transmit mode (sending audio to wireless headphones), making it useful for flexible listening scenarios.
Codec support includes aptX HD, aptX Adaptive, aptX Low Latency, AAC, along with LDAC and aptX Lossless as confirmed at AXPONA 2026. This provides broad compatibility across devices, with support for higher-quality wireless audio and low-latency playback for video.
Listening with Vienna Acoustics
Playback Distribution covers a wide range of brands, including Esoteric, TEAC, Advance Paris, PMC, Velodyne, Amphion, AVID, Audio Solutions, and Vienna Acoustics. The A-i190 was paired with Vienna Acoustics Beethoven series loudspeakers, and in a relatively small room, the amplifier didn’t need much effort to get them moving.
Power was clearly not a limitation. Even at moderate levels, there was good control and a sense that the amplifier was operating comfortably within its limits rather than being pushed. That’s not always the case in show conditions.
The tonal balance leans slightly warm through the midrange, but the top end remains open with enough edge to avoid sounding soft. There’s solid weight through the midbass and below, with a level of control that keeps things from getting loose. It’s a presentation that feels balanced rather than exaggerated in any one direction.
Based on this brief listen, the A-i190 appears capable of working with a wide range of loudspeakers, including more demanding designs. Planar speakers from Magnepan or electrostatics like the Quad ESL-2912x seem within reason given the amplifier’s stability and output.
It’s still a show demo, so call it the first bite of the galette, not the one with the fève hidden inside. But there’s enough here to suggest this isn’t just style and attitude. There’s substance underneath, even if the French would probably shrug and tell you it was obvious all along.
For more information: advanceparis.com
Related Reading:
Samsung is closing the book on its proprietary texting platform this summer. After years of slowly phasing out the software in favor of a more unified experience, the company is finally pulling the plug on its Messages app this July. While many Galaxy owners have already been using Google’s version for years, those holding onto the legacy interface now have a firm deadline to migrate their conversations before the service goes dark.
On a page with information about the switch, Samsung points to instructions on how to swap over to Google’s Messages app, including for phones that are still on Android 12 and Android 13. Samsung has historically preinstalled its own Messages app on Galaxy phones, but began transitioning toward Google Messages as early as 2021.
To encourage people to switch to Google Messages, Samsung’s instructions list new features offered by Google Messages, like RCS-enabled texting for features like typing indicators, easier group chats and sending higher-quality images. Google’s Messages app also has AI-powered spam detection and spam filters, multi-device access to messages and some built-in Gemini AI features. It’s also the app that most Android phones use as their default texting app, including Samsung’s more recent Galaxy S26. There are other SMS texting app alternatives in the Google Play Store if you don’t want to use the one made by Google.
Samsung has not said when exactly in July messaging will no longer work in the app. A Samsung representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Once the app is deactivated, only messaging to emergency services will work on Samsung Messages.
While Samsung did stop including it as the default texting app in 2021, it wasn’t until 2024 that Samsung stopped preinstalling the texting app alongside Google Messages. The Galaxy S26 can’t download the Samsung Messages app, and other phones won’t be able to download it after the app’s July sunset.
Samsung said users of Android 11 or lower aren’t affected by the end of service, but would also likely benefit from switching to a supported texting app like Google Messages. To switch to Google Messages, the company asks users to download the app if it’s not already installed and to set it as the default SMS app when prompted after launching it.
The post also notes that anyone using an older Galaxy Watch that runs on Samsung’s Tizen operating system will no longer have access to their full conversation history since these watches cannot use Google Messages. Samsung said that they will still be able to read and send text messages, but the company’s newer watches (Galaxy Watch 4 and later) that run WearOS will still have access to full conversations.
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
LEGO’s flagship car sets have quietly crept into premium-price territory over the years. But these sets are not the blocky toys you used to build in under an hour, dismantle, and lose in a bottomless pit of colored bricks under your bed. These days, many of them are serious display pieces — and they’re primarily aimed at the adult market. They often have thousands of parts, clever building techniques, and enough detail to make even non-enthusiasts stop and look twice.
In fact, LEGO has been courting adult builders and collectors for years. The Danish company now leans into licensed cars, realistic scale models, and complex builds that feel much closer to engineering projects than to traditional toys. As a result, there’s a full catalog of sets that look more at home on display next to motorsport memorabilia or diecast models than on a play mat.
This list assembles 12 of the best LEGO car sets ever made, although it’s a subjective list and many great kits have been left out. However, the included models justify their place through smart designs, satisfying builds, and, of course, serious shelf presence. Some are faithful recreations of real-life performance cars; others are movie icons or beloved classics. But all prove beyond doubt that LEGO car sets are among the most collectible display pieces for both gearheads and brick fans alike.
LEGO Icons Pickup Truck
LEGO made the decision not to brand this pickup truck after any specific manufacturer. Instead, it blended the rounded styling of several American trucks from the 1950s to create a single, composite design — something new yet instantly familiar. The LEGO Icons Pickup Truck is a dark red, broad-shouldered farm truck steeped in nostalgia, one that could easily have rolled out of rural America 70 years ago. Under the hood, the V8 engine even features a dome-shaped design, a nod to the hemispherical combustion chambers that Chrysler used in its trucks during that era.
To achieve its smooth, gap-free bodywork, the model relies heavily on SNOT (studs not on top) techniques, where bricks are oriented sideways to create a flush surface. It also comes with a full suite of seasonal accessories for different display setups, and the wooden side railings can be removed to switch it from a farm truck to a work truck — a small change that shifts the whole character of the set. It’s not just an aesthetic gem, though. The 1,677-piece set also has some functional details. The hood opens up to reveal that distinctive engine, the doors open and close, the tailgate drops, and the front wheels turn with the steering wheel.
LEGO Technic Ferrari Daytona SP3
In February 1967, three Ferraris crossed the finish line side by side at the 24 Hours of Daytona — taking first, second, and third place on American soil and gaining revenge against Ford after its dominant win at Le Mans the year before. To honor one of the most dramatic events in motorsport history, Ferrari built one of its fastest cars ever — the Daytona SP3. Only 599 were made, and each one is powered by the most potent naturally aspirated V12 Ferrari has built to date, producing about 829 horsepower at 9,250 rpm.
The LEGO Technic Ferrari Daytona SP3 captures much of that same presence, albeit on a smaller scale. But you’ll need to budget for a long build. At 3,778 pieces and hundreds of pages of instruction, you could spend days building it. But it is time well spent. Every stage reveals something new, like a mechanism you didn’t expect or a detail that makes you stop and appreciate the engineering.
Under the rear hood, a hidden lever triggers the butterfly doors. They swing open smoothly and hold their position. Lift the rear and you can see the V12 engine. Its pistons move as you roll the finished car forward, and the removable roof, working steering, 8-speed sequential gearbox, and suspension all work exactly as they should — and there isn’t a single sticker on the model, so every detail is clean and permanent. Once built, it stretches to just over 23 inches long and fills a shelf similar to how the real thing would fill a showroom.
LEGO Batman 1989 Batmobile
In 1989, director Tim Burton gave the world “Batman,” complete with a wild-eyed Michael Keaton, a chaotically cackling Jack Nicholson, and a Batmobile so outrageously cinematic that it looked like it drove straight out of a fever dream. It was long, deeply black, and adorned with sweeping fins — an iteration that arguably beats any other Batmobile that has made it to the big screen.
LEGO did it absolute justice with the 1989 Batmobile kit. Some even say the three minifigures are worth the price of the set alone. Batman comes with a one-piece cape and cowl made from a rubber-like material that mimics how it looked in the movie. The Joker’s gloriously over-the-top outfit is captured in full detail, and his manic grin is perfect. Bruce Wayne’s love interest, Vicky Vale, rounds out the trio. She’s armed with her trusty camera, and both she and the Joker are exclusive to this set.
But then there are the toys. Just where does he get those wonderful toys? Turn the exhaust and a pair of machine guns pop up from the bodywork, while a sliding canopy raises and moves forward to reveal a detailed cockpit. The finished model sits proudly on a rotating display stand, and you’ll never tire of admiring it from every angle. It’s a 3,308-piece set that stretches past 23.5 inches once built — and it looks so good that even Alfred would be impressed.
LEGO Icons Back to the Future Time Machine
When “Back to the Future” hit theaters in 1985, you just knew it was only a matter of time before the DeLorean DMC-12 would become one of the most iconic sci-fi vehicles in movies and TV. LEGO had to get its version right. It first had a crack at it with a smaller Ideas set in 2013, but the 2022 LEGO Icons Back to the Future Time Machine is the definitive build. The 14-inch completed model consists of 1,872 pieces, and it has remained a popular LEGO set since its release.
Building it is a genuinely rewarding experience. Intricate sub-assemblies seem barely held together until they suddenly lock in place, and that recognizable shape slowly emerges piece by piece. The details are strong too. The flux capacitor is lit from inside by a light brick, the tires fold smoothly into flight mode, and the gull-wing doors are slowed by friction pins when they open and close.
With minor adjustments and some accessory swapping, you can configure the vehicle to appear as it did in each of the three movies. The Part I configuration has the lightning rod complete with grappling hook and plutonium case. The Part II configuration swaps in Mr. Fusion, hover conversion, and Marty’s hoverboard, while Part III is covered by the period-appropriate whitewall tires and the replacement time circuits Doc Brown built in the old West.
LEGO Technic McLaren P1
The McLaren P1 set out to be the best driver’s car in the world, and it delivered. It is widely considered one of the best McLarens of all time and part of the Holy Trinity of hypercars, alongside the Ferrari LaFerrari and Porsche 918. The LEGO Technic McLaren P1 is the fifth set in the Ultimate Car Concept Series, and at 3,893 pieces, it is a serious undertaking. The build demands your full attention from start to finish because if you get something wrong early, you’ll be taking it apart later. It might be complex, but building it is a blast.
Inside the finished model, the V8 cylinders are transparent so you can watch the pistons move. The hybrid system is also replicated, allowing you to switch between combined power, electric-only mode, and neutral, while the paddle shifters operate the gearbox. In addition, a worm gear mechanism adjusts the rear wing, and the dihedral doors open wide. At 23 inches long, the finished model will sit on your shelf as a bold statement. That said, collectors might like to know that if you keep the box sealed past its expected retirement date at the end of 2027, its value is predicted to rise significantly.
LEGO Technic Porsche 911 RSR
The 911 RSR is Porsche’s first-ever mid-engine 911 race car, and LEGO developed its 1,580-piece Technic replica in direct partnership with the German automaker. It’s a collaboration that shines through in the detail. The swan neck rear wing and extended rear diffuser are faithfully reproduced, and the body curves are beautifully shaped using flex tubes. Lift the rear bodywork, and you’ll see the six-cylinder boxer engine, with pistons that move as you roll the car forward. The working differential and independent suspension add further mechanical credibility, and — as a bonus — the cockpit features a track map of the Laguna Seca circuit printed onto the driver door.
For anyone looking for a display Porsche 911, this finished model is 19 inches long and will sit proudly in any room. It’s a satisfying build, too, moving through its stages in a logical sequence. There’s nothing overly complicated, and it’s even fairly easy to get through for younger builders. And for anyone new to large Technic builds, the Porsche 911 RSR is the perfect warm-up for bigger models.
LEGO Technic Land Rover Defender
The gearbox on the LEGO Technic Land Rover Defender alone justifies its place on this list. With four gears, high and low modes, a reverse gear, and two levers plus a selector to control it all, it was one of the most advanced gearboxes LEGO Technic had produced at the time. On top of that, the olive green and black color scheme is spot on, and the front of one of the most iconic Land Rover models ever produced is unmistakably the Defender from every angle. You can turn the mounted spare wheel on the rear to swing the tail door open, while under the bonnet, you’ll find a working winch and a six-cylinder engine complete with moving pistons.
The 2,573-piece Defender also comes loaded with all the overlanding gear you need for the wilderness. It’s a display piece that looks ready to go anywhere, but it’s the build itself that makes it one of LEGO’s most entertaining Technic projects. Starting with the rear suspension and working through the chassis, gearbox, interior, and bodywork in a logical sequence, you’ll find little surprises at every stage, like forward-folding rear seats that reveal that complex gearbox.
LEGO Technic Dom’s Dodge Charger
Are there any other cars in film history that can carry the weight of Dom Toretto’s 1970 Dodge Charger R/T in “Fast & Furious”? After all, it’s one of the flashiest cars in the movie, and LEGO had to ensure it got it as authentic as possible. It’s a 1,077-piece Technic replica that was launched in collaboration with both Universal Studios and Dodge, so nailing the details was never going to be a problem.
The car’s V8 engine sits under an opening hood with moving pistons, while the engine carries an internal chain mechanism that adds a layer of authenticity you might not expect at this scale. The suspension is well-judged, too. It has enough give to make this muscle car genuinely satisfying to handle, while the wheelie bar deploys, allowing you to recreate one of the most iconic scenes from the first movie. Tucked into the trunk, you’ll even find the nitro bottles Dom used to win the film’s final race.
The build is pretty accessible for most, though fitting the interior roof assembly is a bit of a challenge. Younger builders might need help at this point, but halfway through construction, the full mechanical package is operational; you can get those wheels spinning across the bedroom floor before the bodywork has even been put together. Once built, the Dodge Charger is striking — it’ll even win the hearts of those who have no interest in the movie.
LEGO Technic Bugatti Chiron
At a cost of around $3 million and featuring a W16 engine that produces 1,479 horsepower, the Bugatti Chiron exists in a world most of us can only dream about. However, the LEGO Technic Bugatti Chiron has a reputation as being one of the most premium building experiences the company has ever offered, compensating dreamers a little. It takes its name from Louis Chiron, the legendary driver who raced for Bugatti in the 1920s and ’30s, and the Technic version offers the signature two-tone blue in homage to the marque’s heritage.
The build even replicates the way the real Chiron is put together, with the front and rear sections constructed independently before being joined together. It’s quite the build, too. With 3,599 pieces requiring 970 steps across 628 pages of instruction, it can take about half a day to construct. It deserves the commitment, though, and there is a nine-episode podcast that accompanies the build, taking you inside the making of the real car.
Mechanically, the speed key raises the rear wing just as it does on the real thing. But it’s the eight-speed gearbox that impresses most. It’s designed around the real car’s seven-speed system, but the eighth gear was forced in because LEGO geometry simply doesn’t allow for an odd number. Engage the paddle shifter, and you can run it through the gears and watch the pistons respond and work harder as the ratios change.
LEGO Icons Ghostbusters ECTO-1
The 1959 Cadillac Miller-Meteor was originally built, among other things, as a hearse or an ambulance — quite fitting, given what it would eventually be used for in the “Ghostbusters” movies. If you ain’t afraid of no ghost, this 2,352-piece LEGO Icons Ghostbusters ECTO-1 is based on the more recent sequel “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” It’s the definitive ECTO-1 build; however, the rust stickers are pretty much the only real difference from the 1984 original, so you can simply leave them off if you want the classic ECTO-1.
The deeply satisfying build takes around six hours, and it’s packed with clever techniques like using ball-and-hitch connections to achieve otherwise impossible angles on the rear quarter panels and a gear-and-axle system that puts the roof instruments in motion as the rear wheels turn. Some of the parts are also genuinely creative. The front grille is assembled from 44 minifigure roller skates, which makes little sense until you see it. You’ll also find other satisfying details like a Marshmallow Man bag that goes in the front passenger seat and, of course, a proton pack.
Creator Expert Ford Mustang
The 1967 Ford Mustang GT Fastback is one of the most celebrated American muscle cars ever built. And when you open the hood of this 1,471-piece Creator Expert Ford Mustang set, you’ll find a big-block 390 V8 engine hiding intricate details you might never have expected. Among them are a battery with color-coded terminals and an oil filler cap bearing the Mustang emblem. The car is finished in Acapulco Blue, and the white racing stripes are printed on for a level of detail that tells you everything you need to know about what LEGO’s priorities were when designing it.
As it’s a Creator set, mechanical details are limited beyond the rear axle adjusting to change the rake angle, the steering wheel turning the front wheels, and the doors, hood, and trunk opening and closing. Customization options are a pleasure, though. You can switch between the configurations of a standard road car and a race-prepped muscle car by adding or removing the included supercharger, side exhaust pipes, ducktail spoiler, chin spoiler, and nitrous oxide tank. The build is full of clever techniques that make you pause and think, too. For example, the doors close flush with the quarter panels thanks to half-bows built into the door jamb, and the dashboard is secured using Technic beams that line up perfectly with a slope brick.
LEGO Technic Lamborghini Sián FKP 37
The Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 is one of the most visually arresting supercars ever made and among the fastest Lamborghinis ever built. The LEGO Technic version captures it perfectly. The lime green color scheme with golden rims is far from subtle, but it helps the car dominate any shelf or room where it’s displayed. Every detail is printed, too. You won’t find a single sticker anywhere on this car. Even the display plate is fully printed.
But, at 3,696 pieces, it’s one serious undertaking. The transmission is the most complex section of the build and will test your concentration, but conquering it makes the build so satisfying. The end result is a stunning 23-inch-long model that will likely stop the conversation of anyone who takes a look.
Features-wise, the scissor doors deploy at the touch of a trigger, and the V12 pistons move. Beneath the chassis, the eight-speed gearbox sits exposed so you can watch it work as you move through the ratios. Additionally, the suspension absorbs movement in a way that feels surprisingly true to life, and the movable rear spoiler adjusts for top-speed mode.
Methodology
We drew on a combination of crowd-sourced rankings from BrickRanker and sales performance where data was available. However, these were balanced against more subjective considerations — build experience, mechanical complexity, visual impact, and what can only be described as the “cool factor.” No methodology is perfect when it comes to “best of” LEGO sets, and any such list will inevitably invite disagreement from readers. So apologies in advance to those other awesome LEGO car sets that didn’t make the final cut.
Seattle-area startups attracted about $1.5 billion in venture funding across 69 deals in the first quarter of 2026, according to the Q1 2026 PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor.
The deal count was the lowest since mid-2020, continuing a trend of venture capital concentrating into fewer, larger rounds, with a disproportionate share of the funding going into a smaller handful of promising startups, many of them in artificial intelligence.
By comparison, the Seattle region’s deal value was $2.2 billion across more than 100 deals in the first quarter of 2025, a year ago. At its peak in early 2022, the region logged 152 deals in a single quarter — more than double the latest figure.
It’s a pattern that is also playing out nationally. U.S. startups raised $267 billion in Q1, more than double the prior record, but five deals — including rounds by OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI — accounted for nearly three-quarters of that total.
“VC has entered the era of consensus deals, and that dynamic will likely persist,” observed the authors of the PitchBook-NVCA report, released Wednesday morning. “Across all stages and series, a small portion of companies is vastly outraising the rest.”
The risk is that the concentration of capital in a shrinking pool of companies could leave much of the startup ecosystem starved for funding even as headline numbers look relatively healthy.
Rankings: According to the report, the Seattle area ranked seventh in the country in the quarter by total capital raised, and 10th overall by deal count.
The region typically ranked No. 6 to 8 on both measures from 2017 to 2020, but has slipped in various quarters by different metrics in recent years. Austin, for example, has surpassed Seattle in deal value and Miami has overtaken it in deal count.
Space standouts: One bright spot is space startups. Stoke Space in Kent raised $350 million, Starcloud in Redmond landed $170 million, and Portal Space Systems in Bothell closed on more than $61 million, according to PitchBook, including a recently reported $50 million round.
That’s a combined $580 million from a cluster of companies building rockets, orbital data centers, and spacecraft propulsion systems in the suburbs south and east of Seattle.
AI and infrastructure: Other big deals in the first quarter included a $300 million Series D for Temporal, the Bellevue-based developer infrastructure startup, and $100 million for Seattle-based Overland AI to scale its autonomous military ground vehicles.
Seven of the 10 largest Seattle-area deals in Q1 carried AI tags, mirroring a national trend in which 88.8% of all U.S. venture deal value went to AI companies, according to PitchBook.
Other notable rounds included a $60 million seed funding for Entire, the developer platform launched by former GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke, who is based in the Seattle area.
What is Seattle, anyway? Xbow, an autonomous cybersecurity company founded by GitHub Copilot creator Oege de Moor, raised $120 million in a Series C round that valued it at more than $1 billion.
Xbow lists Seattle as its headquarters, but its address is a mailbox at a Pioneer Square co-working space, and its roughly 200 employees are distributed globally — one of the realities of the remote-first era, and a reminder that HQ designations don’t always reflect a meaningful local presence.
See GeekWire’s funding tracker for more recent Pacific Northwest deals.
Recorded from the show floor at AXPONA 2026, the team from SVS breaks down their latest powered subwoofer, the SVS 3000 Micro R|Evolution, and why this compact design hits harder than it has any right to. We dig into the engineering behind the output, the tradeoffs of going small without sacrificing performance, and the bigger question hanging over it all is whether SVS is quietly undercutting its own lineup with each new release that raises the bar and resets expectations.
This episode was recorded on April 10, 2026 (the first day of AXPONA 2026).
Where to listen:
On the Panel:
Related Links:
Related Podcasts:
Credits:
STC-15 is the world’s first RNA-modifying enzyme inhibitor to reach human trials. Phase 1 showed durable tumour regression across multiple sarcoma subtypes. The $56M Series C is backed entirely by existing investors including Pfizer Ventures and M Ventures.
STORM Therapeutics, a Cambridge-based clinical-stage biotech targeting RNA modifications to treat cancer, has raised $56 million in a Series C round and dosed the first patient in a Phase 2 clinical trial of its lead drug, STC-15, in selected sarcoma indications.
The round was funded entirely by existing investors: M Ventures, Pfizer Ventures, Taiho Ventures LLC, IP Group plc, the UTokyo Innovation Platform Co., Ltd. (UTokyo IPC), and Fast Track Initiative (FTI).
STC-15 is a first-in-class, oral small-molecule inhibitor of METTL3 – an enzyme that methylates messenger RNA and plays a central role in cancer stem cell differentiation. It is the first RNA-modifying enzyme inhibitor ever to enter human clinical trials, having commenced its Phase 1 study in November 2022.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
METTL3 adds a chemical tag called m6A to mRNA, influencing how cells read genetic instructions; in certain cancers, this process is hijacked to keep malignant progenitor cells locked in a proliferative, undifferentiated state. Inhibiting METTL3 disrupts this process, pushing cancer cells towards cycle arrest and programmed death.
Sarcomas, cancers arising from bone or soft tissue including muscle, fat, cartilage, and blood vessels, account for 1% of adult cancers and 15% of paediatric cancers.
They are notoriously difficult to treat because they frequently lack the driver mutations or immunogenic features that make most solid tumours amenable to targeted therapy or immunotherapy.
STORM’s thesis is that sarcomas are particularly dependent on METTL3-driven mRNA methylation for their growth and survival, making them a biologically compelling target for STC-15. In Phase 1, the drug demonstrated durable tumour regression across multiple sarcoma subtypes across dose levels between 60mg and 200mg taken three times weekly.
Full Phase 1 results are expected to be presented at a medical conference in 2026.
The Phase 2 monotherapy trial is designed to support a potential accelerated regulatory approval pathway for STC-15, and to build a foundation for expanding clinical development into additional oncology indications. The first patient has now been successfully dosed. The trial’s ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT06975293.
STC-15 is simultaneously being evaluated in a Phase 1b/2 combination study with LOQTORZI (toripalimab), a PD-1 inhibitor from Coherus BioSciences, across non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, and endometrial cancer, a collaboration announced in May 2025.
Jonathan Trent, MD of the University of Miami’s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a clinical investigator on the trial, said STC-15’s mechanism “targets sarcomas at their vulnerability, reprogramming malignant cells toward cell cycle arrest and apoptosis.”
STORM CEO Jerry McMahon described the Phase 2 dosing as “a pivotal breakthrough in tackling cancers characterised by aberrant cell differentiation,” pointing to the unmet need in sarcoma where existing options remain limited.
From Kaby Lake to Core Ultra, we revisit Intel’s flagship CPUs to see how a decade of design choices shaped performance, power, and ultimately, how the company lost its lead.
Other MagSafe Grips We’ve Tested
Spigen OM104 MagSafe Phone Grip: The OM104 is a phone/grip combo accessory for MagSafe and Qi2 devices that comes with a flexible nylon strap to slide your finger through while holding your phone. Dual magnets and a robust metal construction make the OM104 feel like money well spent, and even after hours of sliding my finger in and out of the strap, it still feels soft, flexible, and most importantly, comfortable. It has one annoying design oversight. As you slide your phone in and out of your pocket, the nylon strap will start to droop down. The strap is longer than the grip itself, so when you close the kickstand, it’ll get pinched inside and won’t allow the stand to fully close. It’s comfortable to use, but that quibble knocks it down.
Casely MagRing: Unlike other metal grips we’ve tested, Casely’s MagRing is made of soft silicone. We find it more comfortable on the fingers. It also has a 360-degree swivel, so you can position the grip at virtually any angle. This is strictly a grip, so you can’t use it as a kickstand. Since the grip doesn’t fold in, your phone won’t lie fully flat on a surface. We also tested the MagRing+, which comes with a ring clip for attaching your keys. That comes in handy for quick trips to the grocery store or when you go to the gym and need a place to put your car keys and key fob. But Jacob prefers the standard MagRing, since he typically carries his keys in his pocket or bag. Casely has a few variations of the MagRing and MagRing+ in stock, but it appears to be on its last legs.
Smartish Wallflower: It isn’t perfect, but we still love it. The Smartish Wallflower comes with seven small suction cups that look like a flower, allowing you to attach your phone to a wall (or any other surface) and leave it be. It mostly works, but it largely depends on how heavy your phone is and what surface you’re attaching it to. We didn’t have issues with an iPhone 17 and drywall, but the iPhone 15 Pro Max attached to a particleboard cabinet was too heavy for the grip to manage.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
If you’re looking to buy a new iPhone, you may be wondering whether to get the iPhone 17 or score a discount on last year’s iPhone 16. To help with that decision, here’s a breakdown of how the two phones compare.
The iPhone 17 starts at $829 — or $799 with carrier activation — the same price as the iPhone 16 when it debuted. But there’s a key difference: The iPhone 17 starts with 256GB of storage, double the 128GB base on the iPhone 16.
The iPhone 16 is now available at a $100 discount. So, is it worth saving some money or should you splurge on the newer phone?
Here’s what to know about each device, from the cameras to the displays to the batteries. (If you’re looking for a slightly more affordable option, check out the iPhone 17E.)
Watch this: iPhone Air Review: A Joy to Hold, at a Cost
Screen differences
Some of the biggest changes between the iPhone 16 and 17 have to do with the display.
Apple says it shrunk the borders around the screen on the iPhone 17, expanding the display from 6.1 inches on the iPhone 16 to 6.3 inches on the iPhone 17 without expanding its dimensions. The new Ceramic Shield 2 cover on the iPhone 17 offers three-times better scratch resistance, according to the company.
The baseline iPhone 17 gets a display with a 120Hz refresh rate, as opposed to the 60Hz display on the iPhone 16. That means the iPhone 17 finally supports an always-on display, so you can glance at the time, your notifications and Live Activities without waking the screen.
The iPhone 17 also gains an anti-reflective coating and a 3,000-nit peak brightness, compared to 2,000 nits on the iPhone 16. That should make it easier to see your phone in bright sunlight.
Camera differences
Both the iPhone 16 and 17 have a 48-megapixel wide-angle camera. But the iPhone 17 upgrades the ultra-wide camera from 12 megapixels to 48 megapixels.
The front-facing camera also gets an upgrade, going from 12 megapixels on the iPhone 16 to 18 megapixels on the iPhone 17. There’s a new Center Stage feature for the selfie camera that can automatically adjust from a portrait orientation to landscape to make sure everyone is in the shot. That means you don’t have to manually rotate your phone to its side anymore when there are more people to fit in the frame.
Both the iPhone 16 and 17 have a Camera Control button on the side to quickly launch the camera, snap some shots and use Apple’s Visual Intelligence tool to learn more about what’s around you.
Processor and RAM
The iPhone 17 packs an A19 chip, an upgrade from the A18 chip in the iPhone 16. One key difference is that the iPhone 17 starts at 256GB, while the iPhone 16 started at 128GB for the same $829 price when it debuted.
Both phones also support the Apple Intelligence suite of AI capabilities, which includes writing tools, image generators and notification summaries.
Battery life
Apple doesn’t share specific battery specs, but it does measure longevity via video playback hours. The iPhone 16 supports up to 22 hours of video playback, according to Apple, while the iPhone 17 bumps that up to 30 hours.
In CNET’s 45-minute endurance test, which includes streaming, scrolling through social media, joining a video call and playing games, the iPhone 17’s battery went from full to 98%. That’s just over the 97% the iPhone 16 scored last year.
And in a three-hour streaming test over Wi-Fi, which involves watching a YouTube video in full-screen mode at full brightness, the iPhone 17’s battery went from full to 89%. In comparison, the iPhone 16 dropped to 86%.
Anecdotally, the iPhone 17’s battery lasts over a day, even after taking photos, scrolling through social media, watching videos, texting, sending emails and more. The same can be said about the iPhone 16, so you likely won’t feel a huge difference between the two when it comes to day-to-day activities.
A new AI-powered Adaptive Power feature arriving with iOS 26 can help conserve the battery by making “small performance adjustments,” like “allowing some activities to take a little longer,” according to Apple.
The iPhone 17 arrives with the upcoming operating system onboard, but you’ll also be able to download iOS 26 on the iPhone 16, as well as some older iPhones, once it becomes available publicly. That should help to stretch your battery life on either device.
Color options and design
What’s on the inside may be most important, but people also care what their phone looks like. Like the iPhone 16, the iPhone 17 comes in a range of fun colors: black, white, mist blue, sage (a light green) and lavender.
For comparison, the iPhone 16 is available in black, white, pink, teal and ultramarine. Both phones have an aluminum frame. Check out the spec chart below for a breakdown of each phone.
Apple iPhone 17 vs. iPhone 16
Apple iPhone 17
Apple iPhone 16
Display size, tech, resolution, refresh rate
6.3-inch OLED; 2,622 x 1,206 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate
6.1-inch OLED; 2,556 x 1,179 pixel resolution; 60Hz refresh rate
Pixel density
460ppi
460 ppi
Dimensions (inches)
5.89 x 2.81 x 0.31 in
5.81 x 2.82 x 0.31 in
Dimensions (millimeters)
149.6 x 71.5 x 7.95 mm
147.6 x 71.6 x 7.8 mm
Weight (grams, ounces)
177 g (6.24 oz)
170 g (6 oz.)
Mobile software
iOS 26
iOS 18
Camera
48-megapixel (wide) 48-megapixel (ultrawide)
48-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide)
Front-facing camera
18-megapixel
12-megapixel
Video capture
4K
4K
Processor
Apple A19
Apple A18
RAM + storage
RAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB
RAM N/A + 128GB, 256GB, 512GB
Expandable storage
None
None (Face ID)
Battery
Up to 30 hours video playback; up to 27 hours video playback (streamed). Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger.
Up to 22 hours video playback; up to 18 hours video playback (streamed). 20W wired charging. MagSafe wireless charging up to 25W with 30W adapter or higher; Qi2 up to 15W
Fingerprint sensor
None (Face ID)
None (Face ID)
Connector
USB-C
USB-C
Headphone jack
None
None
Special features
Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. 1 to 3000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, mist blue, sage, lavender.
Apple Intelligence, Action button, Camera Control button, Dynamic Island, 1 to 2,000 nits display brightness range, IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, pink, teal, ultramarine.
US price starts at
$829 (256GB)
$829 (128GB)
BitMEX Launches the 24/7 TradFi Campaign Featuring a 50,000 USDT Prize Pool
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Tour Echoes Queen’s Fears
Good Money: 6 Steps to Financial Purpose with John Coleman
-
Politics6 days agoUS brings back mandatory military draft registration
-
Sports6 days agoMan United discover Nico Schlotterbeck transfer fee as defender reaches Dortmund agreement
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Veronica Beard
-
Politics6 days agoMalcolm In The Middle OG Turned Down ‘Buckets Of Money’ To Appear In Reboot
-
Politics4 days agoWorld Cup exit makes Italy enter crisis mode
-
Business6 days agoTesla Model Y Tops China Auto Sales in March 2026 With 39,827 Registrations, Beating Cheaper EVs and Gas Cars
-
Crypto World3 days agoThe SEC Conditionalises DeFi Platforms to Be Avoided for Broker Registration
-
Crypto World3 days agoSEC Signals Exemption for Crypto Interfaces From Broker Registration
-
News Videos1 day agoSecure crypto trading starts with an FIU-registered
-
NewsBeat4 days agoPep Guardiola and Gary Neville agree over Arsenal title problem that benefits Man City
-
Business5 days agoIreland Fuel Protests Enter Day 5 as Blockades Spark Shortages and Government Prepares Support Package
-
Business6 days agoOpenAI Halts Stargate UK Data Centre Project Over Energy Costs and Copyright Row
-
Politics6 days agoLBC Presenter Mocks Trump Over Iran War Failures
-
Crypto World6 days agoFederal judge blocks Arizona from bringing criminal charges against Kalshi
-
NewsBeat2 days agoTrump and Pope Leo: Behind their disagreement over Iran war
-
Crypto World2 days agoSEC Proposes Certain Crypto Interfaces Don’t Need to Register as Brokers
-
NewsBeat4 days agoJD Vance announces ‘no agreement’ with Iran over nuclear weapons fear
-
Tech7 days agoA version of Windows 10 released a decade ago is now eligible for additional security patches
-
Business6 days agoIMF retains floor for precautionary balances at SDR 20 billion
-
Business6 days agoFormer Liverpool CEO eviscerates FIFA for World Cup ticket pricing
You must be logged in to post a comment Login