Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Tech

So, You’ve Hit An Age Gate. What Now?

Published

on

from the getting-around-the-age-gate dept

EFF is against age gating and age verification mandates, and we hope we’ll win in getting existing ones overturned and new ones prevented. But mandates are already in effect, and every day many people are asked to verify their age across the web, despite prominent cases of sensitive data getting leaked in the process.

At some point, you may have been faced with the decision yourself: should I continue to use this service if I have to verify my age? And if so, how can I do that with the least risk to my personal information? This is our guide to navigating those decisions, with information on what questions to ask about the age verification options you’re presented with, and answers to those questions for some of the top most popular social media sites. Even though there’s no way to implement mandated age gates in a way that fully protects speech and privacy rights, our goal here is to help you minimize the infringement of your rights as you manage this awful situation.

Follow the Data

Since we know that leaks happen despite the best efforts of software engineers, we generally recommend submitting the absolute least amount of data possible. Unfortunately, that’s not going to be possible for everyone. Even facial age estimation solutions where pictures of your face never leave your device, offering some protection against data leakage, are not a good option for all users: facial age estimation works less well for people of colortrans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities. There are some systems that use fancy cryptography so that a digital ID saved to your device won’t tell the website anything more than if you meet the age requirement, but access to that digital ID isn’t available to everyone or for all platforms. You may also not want to register for a digital ID and save it to your phone, if you don’t want to take the chance of all the information on it being exposed upon request of an over-zealous verifier, or you simply don’t want to be a part of a digital ID system

If you’re given the option of selecting a verification method and are deciding which to use, we recommend considering the following questions for each process allowed by each vendor:

Advertisement
  • Data: What info does each method require?
  • Access: Who can see the data during the course of the verification process?
  • Retention: Who will hold onto that data after the verification process, and for how long?
  • Audits: How sure are we that the stated claims will happen in practice? For example, are there external audits confirming that data is not accidentally leaked to another site along the way? Ideally these will be in-depth, security-focused audits by specialized auditors like NCC Group or Trail of Bits, instead of audits that merely certify adherence to standards. 
  • Visibility: Who will be aware that you’re attempting to verify your age, and will they know which platform you’re trying to verify for?

We attempt to provide answers to these questions below. To begin, there are two major factors to consider when answering these questions: the tools each platform uses, and the overall system those tools are part of.

In general, most platforms offer age estimation options like face scans as a first line of age assurance. These vary in intrusiveness, but their main problem is inaccuracy, particularly for marginalized users. Third-party age verification vendors Private ID and k-ID offer on-device facial age estimation, but another common vendor, Yoti, sends the image to their servers during age checks by some of the biggest platforms. This risks leaking the images themselves, and also the fact that you’re using that particular website, to the third party. 

Then, there’s the document-based verification services, which require you to submit a hard identifier like a government-issued ID. This method thus requires you to prove both your age and your identity. A platform can do this in-house through a designated dataflow, or by sending that data to a third party. We’ve already seen examples of how this can fail. For example, Discord routed users’ ID data through its general customer service workflow so that a third-party vendor could perform manual review of verification appeals. No one involved ever deleted users’ data, so when the system was breached, Discord had to apologize for the catastrophic disclosure of nearly 70,000 photos of users’ ID documents. Overly long retention periods expose documents to risk of breaches and historical data requests. Some document verifiers have retention periods that are needlessly long. This is the case with Incode, which provides ID verification for Tiktok. Incode holds onto images forever by default, though TikTok should automatically start the deletion process on your behalf.

Some platforms offer alternatives, like proving that you own a credit card, or asking for your email to check if it appears in databases associated with adulthood (like home mortgage databases). These tend to involve less risk when it comes to the sensitivity of the data itself, especially since credit cards can be replaced, but in general still undermine anonymity and pseudonymity and pose a risk of tracking your online activity. We’d prefer to see more assurances across the board about how information is handled.

Each site offers users a menu of age assurance options to choose from. We’ve chosen to present these options in the rough order that we expect most people to prefer. Jump directly to a platform to learn more about its age checks:

Advertisement

Meta – Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Threads

Inferred Age

If Meta can guess your age, you may never even see an age verification screen. Meta, which runs Facebook, Threads, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp, first tries to use information you’ve posted to guess your age, like looking at “Happy birthday!” messages. It’s a creepy reminder that they already have quite a lot of information about you.

If Meta cannot guess your age, or if Meta infers you’re too young, it will next ask you to verify your age using either facial age estimation, or by uploading your photo ID. 

Face Scan

If you choose to use facial age estimation, you’ll be sent to Yoti, a third-party verification service. Your photo will be uploaded to their servers during this process. Yoti claims that “as soon as an age has been estimated, the facial image is immediately and permanently deleted.” Though it’s not as good as not having that data in the first place, Yoti’s security measures include a bug bounty program and annual penetration testing. Researchers from Mint Secure found that Yoti’s app and website are filled with trackers, so the fact that you’re verifying your age could be not only shared to Yoti, but leaked to third-party data brokers as well. 

You may not want to use this option if you’re worried about third parties potentially being able to know you’re trying to verify your age with Meta. You also might not want to use this if you’re worried about a current picture of your face accidentally leaking—for example, if elements in the background of your selfie might reveal your current location. On the other hand, if you consider a selfie to be less sensitive than a photograph of your ID, this option might be better. If you do choose (or are forced to) use the face check system, be sure to snap your selfie without anything you’d be concerned with identifying your location or embarrassing you in the background in case the image leaks.

Advertisement

Upload ID

If Yoti’s age estimation decides your face looks too young, or if you opt out of facial age estimation, your next recourse is to send Meta a photo of your ID. Meta sends that photo to Yoti to verify the ID. Meta says it will hold onto that ID image for 30 days, then delete it. Meanwhile, Yoti claims it will delete the image immediately after verification. Of course, bugs and process oversights exist, such as accidentally replicating information in logs or support queues, but at least they have stated processes. Your ID contains sensitive information such as your full legal name and home address. Using this option not only runs the (hopefully small, but never nonexistent) risk of that data getting leaked through errors or hacking, but it also lets Meta see the information needed to tie your profile to your identity—which you may not want. If you don’t want Meta to know your name and where you live, or rely on both Meta and Yoti to keep to their deletion promises, this option may not be right for you.

Google – Gmail, YouTube 

Inferred Age

If Google can guess your age, you may never even see an age verification screen. Your Google account is typically connected to your YouTube account, so if (like mine) your YouTube account is old enough to vote, you may not need to verify your Google account at all. Google first uses information it already knows to try to guess your age, like how long you’ve had the account and your YouTube viewing habits. It’s yet another creepy reminder of how much information these corporations have on you, but at least in this case they aren’t likely to ask for even more identifying data.

If Google cannot guess your age, or decides you’re too young, Google will next ask you to verify your age. You’ll be given a variety of options for how to do so, with availability that will depend on your location and your age.

Google’s methods to assure your age include ID verification, facial age estimation, verification by proxy, and digital ID. To prove you’re over 18, you may be able to use facial age estimation, give Google your credit card information, or tell a third-party provider your email address.

Advertisement

Face Scan

If you choose to use facial age estimation, you’ll be sent to a website run by Private ID, a third-party verification service. The website will load Private ID’s verifier within the page—this means that your selfie will be checked without any images leaving your device. If the system decides you’re over 18, it will let Google know that, and only that. Of course, no technology is perfect—should Private ID be mandated to target you specifically, there’s nothing to stop it from sending down code that does in fact upload your image, and you probably won’t notice. But unless your threat model includes being specifically targeted by a state actor or Private ID, that’s unlikely to be something you need to worry about. For most people, no one else will see your image during this process. Private ID will, however, be told that your device is trying to verify your age with Google and Google will still find out if Private ID thinks that you’re under 18.

If Private ID’s age estimation decides your face looks too young, you may next be able to decide if you’d rather let Google verify your age by giving it your credit card information, photo ID, or digital ID, or by letting Google send your email address to a third-party verifier.

Email Usage

If you choose to provide your email address, Google sends it on to a company called VerifyMy. VerifyMy will use your email address to see if you’ve done things like get a mortgage or paid for utilities using that email address. If you use Gmail as your email provider, this may be a privacy-protective option with respect to Google, as Google will then already know the email address associated with the account. But it does tell VerifyMy and its third-party partners that the person behind this email address is looking to verify their age, which you may not want them to know. VerifyMy uses “proprietary algorithms and external data sources” that involve sending your email address to “trusted third parties, such as data aggregators.” It claims to “ensure that such third parties are contractually bound to meet these requirements,” but you’ll have to trust it on that one—we haven’t seen any mention of who those parties are, so you’ll have no way to check up on their practices and security. On the bright side, VerifyMy and its partners do claim to delete your information as soon as the check is completed.

Credit Card Verification

If you choose to let Google use your credit card information, you’ll be asked to set up a Google Payments account. Note that debit cards won’t be accepted, since it’s much easier for many debit cards to be issued to people under 18. Google will then charge a small amount to the card, and refund it once it goes through. If you choose this method, you’ll have to tell Google your credit card info, but the fact that it’s done through Google Payments (their regular card-processing system) means that at least your credit card information won’t be sitting around in some unsecured system. Even if your credit card information happens to accidentally be leaked, this is a relatively low-risk option, since credit cards come with solid fraud protection. If your credit card info gets leaked, you should easily be able to dispute fraudulent charges and replace the card.

Advertisement

Digital ID

If the option is available to you, you may be able to use your digital ID to verify your age with Google. In some regions, you’ll be given the option to use your digital ID. In some cases, it’s possible to only reveal your age information when you use a digital ID. If you’re given that choice, it can be a good privacy-preserving option. Depending on the implementation, there’s a chance that the verification step will “phone home” to the ID provider (usually a government) to let them know the service asked for your age. It’s a complicated and varied topic that you can learn more about by visiting EFF’s page on digital identity.

Upload ID

Should none of these options work for you, your final recourse is to send Google a photo of your ID. Here, you’ll be asked to take a photo of an acceptable ID and send it to Google. Though the help page only states that your ID “will be stored securely,” the verification process page says ID “will be deleted after your date of birth is successfully verified.” Acceptable IDs vary by country, but are generally government-issued photo IDs. We like that it’s deleted immediately, though we have questions about what Google means when it says your ID will be used to “improve [its] verification services for Google products and protect against fraud and abuse.” No system is perfect, and we can only hope that Google schedules outside audits regularly.

TikTok

Inferred Age

If TikTok can guess your age, you may never even see an age verification notification. TikTok first tries to use information you’ve posted to estimate your age, looking through your videos and photos to analyze your face and listen to your voice. By uploading any videos, TikTok believes you’ve given it consent to try to guess how old you look and sound.

If TikTok decides you’re too young, appeal to revoke their age decision before the deadline passes. If TikTok cannot guess your age, or decides you’re too young, it will automatically revoke your access based on age—including either restricting features or deleting your account. To get your access and account back, you’ll have a limited amount of time to verify your age. As soon as you see the notification that your account is restricted, you’ll want to act fast because in some places you’ll have as little as 23 days before the deadline passes.

Advertisement

When you get that notification, you’re given various options to verify your age based on your location.

Face Scan

If you’re given the option to use facial age estimation, you’ll be sent to Yoti, a third-party verification service. Your photo will be uploaded to their servers during this process. Yoti claims that “as soon as an age has been estimated, the facial image is immediately and permanently deleted.” Though it’s not as good as not having that data in the first place, Yoti’s security measures include a bug bounty program and annual penetration testing. However, researchers from Mint Secure found that Yoti’s app and website are filled with trackers, so the fact that you’re verifying your age could be leaked not only to Yoti, but to third-party data brokers as well.

You may not want to use this option if you’re worried about third parties potentially being able to know you’re trying to verify your age with TikTok. You also might not want to use this if you’re worried about a current picture of your face accidentally leaking—for example, if elements in the background of your selfie might reveal your current location. On the other hand, if you consider a selfie to be less sensitive than a photograph of your ID or your credit card information, this option might be better. If you do choose (or are forced to) use the face check system, be sure to snap your selfie without anything you’d be concerned with identifying your location or embarrassing you in the background in case the image leaks.

Credit Card Verification

If you have a credit card in your name, TikTok will accept that as proof that you’re over 18. Note that debit cards won’t be accepted, since it’s much easier for many debit cards to be issued to people under 18. TikTok will charge a small amount to the credit card, and refund it once it goes through. It’s unclear if this goes through their regular payment process, or if your credit card information will be sent through and stored in a separate, less secure system. Luckily, these days credit cards come with solid fraud protection, so if your credit card gets leaked, you should easily be able to dispute fraudulent charges and replace the card. That said, we’d rather TikTok provide assurances that the information will be processed securely.

Advertisement

Credit Card Verification of a Parent or Guardian

Sometimes, if you’re between 13 and 17, you’ll be given the option to let your parent or guardian confirm your age. You’ll tell TikTok their email address, and TikTok will send your parent or guardian an email asking them (a) to confirm your date of birth, and (b) to verify their own age by proving that they own a valid credit card. This option doesn’t always seem to be offered, and in the one case we could find, it’s possible that TikTok never followed up with the parent. So it’s unclear how or if TikTok verifies that the adult whose email you provide is your parent or guardian. If you want to use credit card verification but you’re not old enough to have a credit card, and you’re ok with letting an adult know you use TikTok, this option may be reasonable to try.

Photo with a Random Adult?

Bizarrely, if you’re between 13 and 17, TikTok claims to offer the option to take a photo with literally any random adult to confirm your age. Its help page says that any trusted adult over 25 can be chosen, as long as they’re holding a piece of paper with the code on it that TikTok provides. It also mentions that a third-party provider is used here, but doesn’t say which one. We haven’t found any evidence of this verification method being offered. Please do let us know if you’ve used this method to verify your age on TikTok!

Photo ID and Face Comparison

If you aren’t offered or have failed the other options, you’ll have to verify your age by submitting a copy of your ID and matching photo of your face. You’ll be sent to Incode, a third-party verification service. In a disappointing failure to meet the industry standard, Incode itself doesn’t automatically delete the data you give it once the process is complete, but TikTok does claim to “start the process to delete the information you submitted,” which should include telling Incode to delete your data once the process is done. If you want to be sure, you can ask Incode to delete that data yourself. Incode tells TikTok that you met the age threshold without providing your exact date of birth, but then TikTok wants to know the exact date anyway, so it’ll ask for your date of birth even after your age has been verified.

TikTok itself might not see your actual ID depending on its implementation choices, but Incode will. Your ID contains sensitive information such as your full legal name and home address. Using this option not only runs the (hopefully small, but never nonexistent) risk of that data getting accidentally leaked through errors or hacking. If you don’t want TikTok or Incode to know your name, what you look like, and where you live—or if you don’t want to rely on both TikTok and Incode to keep to their deletion promises—then this option may not be right for you.

Advertisement

Everywhere Else

We’ve covered the major providers here, but age verification is unfortunately being required of many other services that you might use as well. While the providers and processes may vary, the same general principles will apply. If you’re trying to choose what information to provide to continue to use a service, consider the “follow the data” questions mentioned above, and try to find out how the company will store and process the data you give it. The less sensitive information, the fewer people have access to it, and the more quickly it will be deleted, the better. You may even come to recognize popular names in the age verification industry: Spotify and OnlyFans use Yoti (just like Meta and Tiktok), Quora and Discord use k-ID, and so on. 

Unfortunately, it should be clear by now that none of the age verification options are perfect in terms of protecting information, providing access to everyone, and safely handling sensitive data. That’s just one of the reasons that EFF is against age-gating mandates, and is working to stop and overturn them across the United States and around the world.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: age gating, age verification, credit cards, face scans, id, privacy

Companies: facebook, google, instagram, meta, tiktok, whatsapp, youtube

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

April Fools’ Day 2026: The Good, the Bad and the Bizarre of This Year’s Corporate Jokes

Published

on

If you’re online at all in 2026, you know it can feel like April Fools’ Day every day. You’ve almost certainly come across videos and content, often created with AI, and had to stop and ask yourself if what you’re looking at is true or made up. 

Some are obvious. You mean, there aren’t really beds made of kittens, cotton candy and rubies? And I wasn’t really offered a job guarding a spooky funeral home where I might hear tapping coming from the morgue freezer at 3 a.m.? (Both of these are TikTok videos, and the AI is scarily good — and also just scary.)

As brands roll out their April Fools’ Day jokes for this year, I keep thinking that in an AI-heavy world, the jokes seem less surprising, the faked-up art less novel. Here are some highlights from this year’s list of April 1 corporate and tech jokes.

Advertisement

Fortnite: Big heads and llama riding

Here’s an April Fool’s prank that’s more than a joke, it’s real — but only temporary. Fortnite players can try out a 24-hour-only April Fool’s Day game update that throws some truly wacky changes into the popular game. Players get enormous heads, can ride on other players’ shoulders, can use finger guns that go “pew, pew,” make a splat sound when landing after a fall, and, perhaps best of all, rideable llamas have appeared.

Warhammer: The Musical

Hey, if Broadway can make a musical about Alexander Hamilton, or a bunch of cats, surely they can make one about the Warhammer universe? That’s the joke behind this trailer for The Emperor Protects: A Warhammer 40,000 Musical, the April 1 joke from Games Workshop, creator of the popular game world. The 2.5-minute trailer, with impressive costumes and music, really sells it.

Traeger: AI-powered grilling glasses

Screenshot from the Traeger grill site shows their April 1 prank, AI grill glasses.

A

Advertisement

Screenshot by Gael Fashingbauer Cooper/CNET

This April 1 joke seems like it could maybe be a practical, real thing. Traeger makes wood-pellet grills, and this year’s joke is their claim to offer AI-powered grilling eyeglasses. “With smart guidance, thermal imaging, night‑vision, and hands‑free photo and video capture, MEAT‑AI lets you command every cook like never before,” the site touts. Hmm, I wouldn’t actually mind a pair of glasses that could look down at my grill and tell me whether my steak is done or how much more time it needs to cook. Get on that, Traeger.

T-Mobile cologne

Model holds a purple cell phone-shape that is presented as a cologne bottle

Can you smell me now? Wait, wrong cellphone company.

T-Mobile

Want to smell like your cellphone? What does that even mean? Wireless tech giant T-Mobile’s prank is Metro by T-Mobile CALLoGNE, combining call, as in phone call, with cologne. The company touts its April 1 joke as “the world’s first luxury fragrance inspired by the unmistakable scent of a brand-new phone.” Metro is T-Mobile’s prepaid brand, formerly known as MetroPCS. 

Advertisement

Timekettle British translation

They say the US and UK are two nations separated by a common language. You may already know some British phrases, including “boot” for what Americans call a car trunk, and “bonnet” for what we call the hood of a car. Timekettle makes AI-powered translation products, and its April 1 prank is a British-to-American language translation update for its translation devices. Cheerio, old chap.

british-translation-app-april-1

Timekettle offers translation services, but the British English to American English version is a special April 1 joke.

Timekettle

Whisker cat hair clothing

Advertisement
cataire.png

From couture to cat hair, Whisker’s April 1 prank involves cat-hair clothing.

Whisker

If you own a cat, cat hair is already on everything in your closet. So Cataire (like couture, I guess), a line of designer clothing made out of real cat hair, doesn’t seem that far off. Whisker, the company behind the Litter-Robot litter box, is taking this April 1 prank to the meowy max. They’ve actually used real cat hair from adoptable cats at a Michigan animal shelter to adorn three sweaters that will later be sold on eBay. Each eBay listing doubles as an adoption profile for a real shelter cat.

Yahoo’s Scrōll Stoppr

scrollstoppr-1

Doomscrolling isn’t even a possibility with Yahoo’s thumb guard, ScrōllStoppr.

Advertisement

Yahoo

Those who spend too much time on their phones might appreciate the idea behind Yahoo’s prank, Scrōll Stoppr. It’s described as “a delightfully absurd finger accessory that physically blocks your thumb from touching your phone screen.” I hate to break it to Yahoo, but I discovered this myself years ago when I cut my thumb slicing onions for Thanksgiving and had to wrap it in a Band-Aid. Yahoo says you can actually buy this — it will be available for $5 on Yahoo TikTok Shop on April 1 and will be delivered in a box that sounds off with the Yahoo signature yodel. If it sells out, just put on a Band-Aid for the same results. BYO yodel.

Omaha Steaks pocket steak

Man is shown pulling a pocket-sized Omaha steak package our of a denim shirt pocket.

Stake out a spot in your shirt for this pocket steak.

Omaha Steaks

Need a spot of protein on the go? Omaha Steaks is best known for sending giant crates of beef as gifts, but the company’s April 1 product is “the world’s first pocket-sized steak.” It gets beefier: The company jokes that the steak is cooked by motion-activated technology. A rare deal indeed, if well done.

Advertisement

Baskin-Robbins ice cream soup

br-soup.png

Slurp up Baskin-Robbins April Fools’ Day joke, ice-cream soup.

Baskin-Robbins

Baskin-Robbins has always had creative ice cream flavors, but for April 1, the company is hyping… ice cream soup. Not real, of course, but they’re promoting the faux frozen dessert in hopes that people will be inspired to take advantage of a buy-one-get-one 50% off deal on pre-packed quarts April 1-2 for Baskin-Robbins Rewards Members. Slurp ’em if you got ’em.

Baby Bottle Pop, supplement style

Advertisement
bottle-pop-april-1.png

Suck on this, say the makers of Baby Bottle Pop.

Baby Bottle Pop

Grown-ups don’t get any of the fun kid candy, but instead are stuck taking vitamins and supplements. Baby Bottle Pop Candy, which is exactly what it sounds like, candy in a baby-bottle container, is pretending for April 1 that it now comes in adult flavors. Is protein a flavor? Is fiber? Salmon is, but candy salmon is too much, even for this Seattleite. Thankfully, it’s just for April Fools’ Day.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Watch Artemis II Live: When is NASA’s Historic Moon Launch?

Published

on

The top sections of a large rocket and a launch gantry against the background of a deep blue sky.

NASA’s Artemis II Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft and the launch gantry at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on March 31, 2026.

NASA/Keegan Barber

Fifty-four years after the last Apollo mission to the moon, NASA’s Artemis II mission is set to return. The Space Launch System rocket carrying the Orion spacecraft is scheduled to take off from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Wednesday afternoon. The four-person crew, made up of American and Canadian astronauts, will be 250,000 miles from Earth at its farthest point in the journey to orbit the moon. This is everything you need to know about NASA’s mission, its dreams for a future lunar base and this new age of space exploration.

How to watch Artemis II moon launch

Advertisement

Takeoff is scheduled for Wednesday at 6:24 p.m. ET / 3:24 p.m. PT from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Delays are common during launches, especially due to weather, so we’ll keep this story updated if the takeoff time changes.

You can watch the livestream on NASA’s YouTube, official website and social media accounts. If you’re looking for coverage in Spanish, check out NASA’s Spanish YouTube channel.

How to Watch NASA's Artemis II Mission chart

Here’s all the ways you can keep up with the Artemis II mission.

Advertisement

NASA

What to expect from this mission to the moon

The Artemis II mission is designed to orbit the moon on a 10-day trip. The astronauts will not be touching down on the moon’s surface this trip, but they will be testing the system’s life support systems for the first time, according to NASA. This mission also sets the stage for future Artemis missions, including Artemis IV, scheduled for 2028, which should put humans back on the moon.

We’ll be keeping up-to-date on all the latest Artemis II news, so check back here today and throughout the week for updates.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

OpenAI closes larger than expected funding round of $122bn

Published

on

The giant funding round gives OpenAI a post-money valuation of $852bn.

Artificial intelligence company OpenAI has announced the closure of a recent funding round at $122bn, exceeding the projected figure of $110bn. 

The round was backed by strategic partners Amazon, Nvidia and SoftBank, with continued participation from OpenAI’s long-term partner Microsoft. SoftBank co-led the round alongside a16z, DE Shaw Ventures, MGX, TPG and accounts advised by T Rowe Price Associates. There was also participation from several global institutions.

For the first time, OpenAI extended participation to investors through banking channels, raising more than $3bn from individual investors. The funding round gives OpenAI a post-money valuation of $852bn, the company said. 

Advertisement

In a post about the announcement, OpenAI said, “This is commercial scale and it is mission scale. The fastest way to widen the benefits of AI is to put useful intelligence in people’s hands early and let that access compound globally. 

“AI is driving productivity gains, accelerating scientific discovery and expanding what people and organisations can build. This funding gives us the resources to continue to lead at the scale this moment demands.”

The announcement comes at a time when OpenAI is calling a halt to specific features and products, as it aims to better manage costs and reprioritise resources. For example, plans for an erotic ChatGPT were reportedly put on hold indefinitely, as OpenAI elected to carry out additional research and to address concerns from staff and investors. 

Additionally, in late March, the platform revealed plans to shut down controversial AI video generator Sora just a few months after announcing a multi-year licensing deal with Disney. OpenAI explained that bybending the feature, the organisation can redirect its focus onto other projects. 

Advertisement

OpenAI is facing significant challenges from rivals in the AI space and recently news surfaced indicating the company’s plans to combine its AI chatbot, coding tool and web browser into a desktop ‘superapp’.

Sources noted that the move is intended to counter harsh competition from the AI giant’s rivals, such as Anthropic. 

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.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Robinhood sues WA state to block enforcement of gambling laws against prediction markets

Published

on

Robinhood isn’t waiting to get sued in Washington state. 

The financial services company filed a preemptive federal suit against Washington’s attorney general and gambling commission, arguing the state can’t use its gambling laws to shut down prediction market trading that it contends is authorized under federal commodities law.

The suit comes a few days after Washington Attorney General Nick Brown sued prediction market platform Kalshi in state court. The state takes the position that event contracts — which let users wager on the outcome of real-world activities ranging from NFL games to elections to the number of measles cases in a given year — amount to illegal gambling.

In its lawsuit, filed March 30 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Wash., Robinhood argues that federal law preempts Washington’s gambling statutes as applied to event contracts traded on exchanges regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

Robinhood Markets, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is known for popularizing commission-free stock trading. The suit was filed by its Chicago-based subsidiary, Robinhood Derivatives

Advertisement

The company, which is registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant, offers event contracts through the Kalshi and ForecastEx exchanges and says it plans to launch trading on a third exchange, Rothera, later this year, according to the complaint.

Pre-emptive move: The company points to the Kalshi suit and a December warning from the state Gambling Commission declaring prediction markets “unauthorized” as evidence that enforcement against the company is imminent.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Robinhood by the law firms Davis Wright Tremaine in Seattle and Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York.

Robinhood’s suit cites Brown’s statement, at a press conference last week, that Kalshi is “just a bookie with a fancy name, and a huge amount of venture capital behind them.”

Advertisement

The suit says the company had “no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect its customers and its business.”

“[W]e believe in the power of prediction markets and the important role they play at the intersection of trading, news, economics, politics, culture, and sports,” a Robinhood spokesperson said via email, noting that the markets are federally regulated. “This step, consistent with our past actions in other jurisdictions, aims to preserve access for customers in Washington.”

GeekWire has reached out to the Washington AG’s office for comment.

Broader landscape: The case is part of a national wave of litigation over prediction markets. Kalshi is fighting more than 20 civil lawsuits, and Arizona’s AG filed criminal charges last month. 

Advertisement

Courts are split on the issue. Federal judges in New Jersey and Tennessee, for example, have ruled that states cannot enforce their gambling laws against federally regulated prediction markets, while state courts in Massachusetts and Ohio have ruled that they can.

Washington state has staked out a broader position than other states in this fight, arguing that all event contracts — not just sports bets — are illegal under state law. Other states have focused their enforcement on sports-related contracts specifically.A bipartisan bill introduced last week by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and John Curtis (R-Utah) would ban sports betting on prediction market platforms.

Read the full complaint below.

Robinhood v. WA state by GeekWire

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Are Mini Leaf Blowers ACTUALLY Worth It?

Published

on







Leaf blowers are pretty versatile tools for keeping your yard tidy, blowing snow off your car, or anything else that needs a healthy measure of forced air. Unfortunately for people with more space constraints, your average blower is pretty big and unwieldy. Additionally, for people with limited mobility options or noise limitations, a smaller, more compact leaf blower might be the ticket.

Advertisement

Enter the advent of the mini leaf blower. We all know that a full-size leaf blower packs some power, but how does a tiny handheld version perform? Does the reduction in size make it less useful? In this video, we take a couple mini leaf blowers purchased online through the ringer and see what each one is capable of.

Will the name brand come up on top, or will a lesser-known brand take the crown as the winner? More importantly, are mini leaf blowers even worth it compared to the full-size versions?

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Meta and YouTube found liable in landmark social media addiction trial

Published

on

Mark Lanier, the folksy Texas litigator who doubles as a part-time pastor, held a jar of M&Ms in front of the Los Angeles jury and told them that each one represented a billion dollars of Meta’s market capitalisation. There were, by that maths, roughly 1,400 sweets in the jar. The jury awarded his client six of them. The question now stalking Silicon Valley is what happens when the other jars start to empty.

On Wednesday 25 March, a California jury found Meta and Google liable on all counts in the first bellwether trial to test whether social media platforms can be treated as defective products, engineered, like a faulty car seat or a contaminated drug, to cause harm. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified only as K.G.M. and referred to in court as Kaley, told the jury she had begun using YouTube at six years old and Instagram at nine, and that the platforms had amplified personal struggles into body dysmorphia, depression, and suicidal thoughts. After nine days of deliberation, 43 hours in total,  the jurors agreed.

The damages were modest by big-tech standards: $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, split 70-30 between Meta and Google. Meta’s share amounts to $4.2 million against a company whose market capitalisation, at the time of the verdict, stood at approximately $1.4 trillion. But the financial significance of the ruling lies not in what was awarded but in what it unlocked. More than 10,000 individual cases and nearly 800 school-district claims are pending in federal multidistrict litigation, with eight further bellwether trials scheduled for the months ahead. The verdict establishes, for the first time, that a jury will accept the legal theory that social media apps should be treated as products whose design is inherently defective.

The ruling landed one day after a separate jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico, ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties ,$5,000 per violation — after finding the company had violated state consumer-protection laws by enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram. New Mexico became the first state to prevail at trial against a social media company over child-safety concerns. Evidence presented during that six-week trial included internal Meta documents and testimony from former employees establishing that the platform’s design features had enabled predators to target minors. A bench trial on the state’s remaining claims against Meta is scheduled to begin on 4 May.

Advertisement

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!

The back-to-back verdicts sent Meta’s stock into its steepest decline in more than two years. Shares fell 6.8 per cent the day after the Los Angeles verdict, continued sliding to an 8 per cent drop the following day, and finished the week down 11 per cent. By month’s end, Meta was down 19 per cent, having shed roughly $310 billion in market value. Analysts at JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs began revising their price targets, citing what they described as unquantifiable tail risk from the cascade of litigation now using the verdict as a template.

Inside Meta, the verdict is viewed as a disappointment rather than a crisis — at least publicly. The company had entered the trial confident in its position, arguing that Kaley’s struggles with family and school predated her use of Instagram and that reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risked leaving broader issues unaddressed. A spokesperson told the BBC that many teenagers rely on digital communities to find belonging. Meta said it would appeal, and gave no indication it would settle future cases or alter its product design.

Advertisement

Google took a different tack, arguing that YouTube had been mischaracterised in the trial. YouTube is “a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” the company said — a distinction the jury evidently did not find persuasive. Both companies will have the opportunity to refine their legal arguments as the bellwether programme continues, but the evidentiary record from Kaley’s trial, including internal documents in which Meta executives discussed efforts to attract and retain young users, can now be recalled in subsequent proceedings.

TikTok and Snapchat’s parent company Snap Inc had been co-defendants in the case but settled before the trial began. The settlement amounts remain undisclosed, and neither company admitted liability, but the decision to resolve their exposure before a jury could weigh in suggests their legal teams reached a different calculus than Meta’s. Both companies remain defendants in several upcoming bellwether trials.

The broader implications extend well beyond courtroom damages. Eric Goldman, an associate dean and professor of law at Santa Clara University, told the BBC he viewed the social media addiction cases as a potentially existential threat to the industry’s current business model. The social media industry, Goldman wrote after the verdict, “faces existential legal liability and inevitably will need to reconfigure their core offerings if they can’t get broad-based relief on appeal.” Former Twitter executive Bruce Daisley framed the structural problem more bluntly: two decades of growth had produced businesses “geared for trying to force people to spend more and more time” on their platforms, and any regulation or litigation that threatened that engagement model became a problem to be neutralised through lobbying and public relations.

The legal reckoning arrives at a moment when the technology industry’s relationship with regulators is already under severe strain. Australia’s social-media age ban, which took effect in December 2025, has prompted enforcement actions against five platforms for non-compliance. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and AI Act are imposing new obligations that many companies have struggled to meet. The NIS2 Directive has expanded cybersecurity regulatory scope across eighteen sectors. And the US Congress, where Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was meeting Senate Majority Leader John Thune on the day the verdict landed, continues to weigh federal age-verification and platform-liability legislation.

Advertisement

What distinguishes the litigation from the regulatory push is that juries, unlike legislators, do not negotiate. They decide. And in Los Angeles last week, twelve citizens decided that the products Meta and Google built were defective, that the companies knew they were defective, and that a young woman was harmed as a result. The $6 million penalty is a rounding error for companies worth more than the GDP of most nations. The legal precedent is not.

As Kaley’s attorney Jayne Conroy told the BBC after the verdict: there is, right now, a lot of maths going on in boardrooms at Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Spotify Finally Tries Hi-Fi: Lossless Listening Lounge in London Built Around Horn Speakers and Bryston Power

Published

on

Spotify has spent the better part of two decades convincing the world that convenience beats fidelity. Now it wants you to sit down, shut up, take your shoes off, and listen. Really listen. Inside its London headquarters, the company has opened a 30-seat Listening Lounge designed to showcase its long-delayed lossless tier, which finally arrived in 2025 after competitors like TIDAL, Qobuz, and Apple Music had already moved on to higher ground. Timing has never been Spotify’s strong suit when it comes to sound quality, but at least it showed up.

The Listening Lounge is invite-only, which feels about right. Spotify Premium users and “top fans” get the nod, assuming they want to trade playlists and background noise for something resembling focus. The room is built around album-centric sessions and curated listening events, which Spotify now calls “intentional listening.” Audiophiles have been calling it Tuesday night since 1978, but sure, let’s rebrand it and roll it out to the press who will eat it up like horseradish on gefilte fish at the Passover seder. On second thought — stick with the biltong and some mustard.

To Spotify’s credit, it didn’t cheap out on the system. This isn’t a soundbar and some mood lighting. The setup leans hard into old-school hi-fi: custom horn-loaded speakers from Friendly Pressure, Bryston 3B Cubed power amplifiers, a PrimaLuna DAC paired with an Evo 400 tube preamp, and a Bluesound Node Icon handling streaming duties.

spotify-listening-lounge-london-angle

The speakers are big, unapologetic, and built around Alnico drivers and compression horns that don’t care about your furniture layout or your neighbors. This is two-channel stereo with no Atmos tricks, no DSP safety net, and no interest in pretending otherwise. Left, right, and whatever your ears can handle.

Advertisement

The room itself plays along. Designed with a Japanese vinyl bar aesthetic, the system sits elevated like some kind of altar, because apparently we’re doing ritual now. Acoustic treatment is handled seriously, reflections are controlled, distractions minimized. And yes, you take your shoes off. Nothing says “we’re serious about lossless audio” quite like white socks from Marks & Spencer on a polished floor while a tube preamp warms the room.

The timing of all this is hard to ignore. Spotify’s lossless rollout wasn’t early. It wasn’t even competitive. It was late. While others were pushing 24-bit streams and building credibility with listeners who actually care about sound, Spotify leaned into scale, algorithms, and playlists designed for people who don’t want to think too hard about what they’re hearing. Now that fidelity has become “important,” Spotify is doing what large companies do best. Build an experience, control the narrative, invite the right people, and hope nobody remembers how they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the room.

spotify-listening-lounge-london-right

The system, however, does its job. Reports point to serious dynamics, scale that fills the room, and a level of clarity that makes lossless audio feel like more than a marketing checkbox. Horn speakers bring speed and impact, along with a presentation that can get a little sharp if the recording demands it. That’s the trade-off. This setup doesn’t smooth things over or make bad recordings sound polite. It tells the truth, whether you like it or not. There’s a lesson there for the high-end audio community.

This whole exercise isn’t really about a room in London. It’s about positioning. Spotify wants to be seen as a company that understands high-end audio, not just one that delivers background music between podcasts and ads. It wants a seat at the same table as services that built their reputations on fidelity, not convenience. That’s a tough pivot when your entire business model was built on making music easier, faster, smaller, and rather crappy sounding.

Advertisement

The Bottom Line

The Listening Lounge is impressive. The system is real. The intent is finally pointed in the right direction. But there’s an unavoidable edge of irony here. Audiophiles have been building rooms like this for decades without the need for an invite list or a press release. Spotify didn’t invent serious listening. It just discovered that it matters.

And that’s where this either becomes something meaningful or just another well-lit detour. Spotify isn’t a niche player trying to earn credibility. It’s the largest music streaming platform on the planet, with hundreds of millions of users; more than all of its direct competitors combined. If lossless audio actually matters to the company, this can’t stop at a single curated room in London with a guest list and a carefully controlled narrative. That’s not a movement. That’s a demo.

Because the real test isn’t what happens inside that room. It’s what happens outside of it. Does Spotify push lossless as a core feature across the platform, front and center, where its massive user base can actually engage with it? Does it educate listeners on why better sound quality matters? Does it integrate that experience into everyday listening in a way that doesn’t require an invitation and a plane ticket?

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Advertisement

Right now, it feels like Spotify is trying to prove something—to the press, to the industry, maybe even to itself. But if this is going to land, it needs to scale beyond a showcase and become part of the product story in a real, unavoidable way. Otherwise, this Listening Lounge risks being remembered for what it looks like today: a very expensive reminder that Spotify showed up late and is still figuring out how serious it wants to be.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Aspyr: Hey, Those Crappy Tomb Raider Remastered Outfits Were Made By Our Artists, Not AI!

Published

on

from the McPromptism dept

I’m going to trust that most of our audience will have some idea of what McCarthyism was in the 1950s. To summarize very briefly, it was an anti-communist campaign that spread into becoming equally anti-leftist throughout the country, with a specific focus on driving the supposed communist influences out of major media in America, such as radio and Hollywood. This led to a public hyper-vigilant in looking for supposed communists everywhere, as well as plenty of cases of false accusations of communist activity purposefully foisted upon people for personal reasons. This rabid, frothy-mouthed era of suspicion became a major stain on America in the 1950s.

I’m watching a version of this begin to take form around artificial intelligence. I know, I know: there are very real dangers and negative outcomes that could come to be from AI. That was true of communism and our Cold War enemy in the Soviet Union as well. My point is not that AI is great all the time and any pushback against it is invalid. Instead, my point is that we’re starting to see what I’ll call McPromptism, where some percentage of the public looks for AI everywhere it can and, if use is suspected, immediately decries it as terrible and demands that people not engage with the supposed user.

And just like McCarthyism, McPromptism gets its accusations wrong sometimes. You can see a version of that in the story of Aspyr’s remastering of old Tomb Raider games and the horrible outfits that were produced for the protagonist, Lara Croft.

Earlier this week we reported on fan reaction to the latest update to the Tomb Raider I-III Remastered collection, in which the game received a new Challenge Mode, while Lara received a suite of new outfits to wear as rewards. And oh wow, they were bad. Comically bad. So bad, in fact, that one of the remaster’s original artists posted on X to distance himself and his colleagues from the dross. Alongside all of this was the suspicion that genAI might have been involved in the fits’ creation, given just how dreadful they looked. Publisher Aspyr has now finally responded to the claims to insist no AI was used at all, instead stating they were created by “our team of artists.” Which raises more questions.

If you want to see a somewhat humorous look at the outfit textures that are the subject of public complaint, here you go.

Advertisement

On the one hand, for someone like me who is not into the anti-AI dogma out there, it is objectively funny for some people to point at bad video game textures and claim they’re so bad because they’re obviously created using generative AI… only to have the company that made them say, “Nuh uh! It was our human employees who made them!” It’s almost Monty-Python-esque, in a way.

But this default among some in the gaming public to be “This thing in gaming is bad, so it must have been made using AI!” is just one more kind of silly that is out there right now. Aspyr doesn’t exactly have a perfect reputation when it comes to remastering games, after all, and it built that reputation long before genAI came along.

It seems clear that this was a case of images being released to promote the remastered game that Aspyr didn’t live up to in the actual game itself. No AI, just human beings not hitting the mark. It happens all the time. Hell, there is even a chance that AI could have done a better job. Not a certainty by any stretch, but a possibility.

Advertisement

But the real take away from this otherwise minor episode for me was the McPromptism misfire. If you’re going to rage against the literal machine in the video gaming industry, which I think is the wrong stance to take anyway, at least let it be righteous rage.

Filed Under: ai, mcpromptism, tomb raider, video games

Companies: aspyr

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Watch NASA count down to the launch of humanity’s first moon voyage in nearly 54 years

Published

on

NASA’s Space Launch System rocket stands on its launch pad in preparation for the Artemis 2 moon launch. (NASA Photo / Bill Ingalls)

After years of postponements and close to $100 billion in spending, NASA is finally counting down to its first attempt to send astronauts around the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972.

The 10-day Artemis 2 mission is set to begin today with the liftoff of NASA’s Space Launch System rocket from NASA’s historic Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The two-hour launch window opens at 6:24 p.m. ET (3:24 p.m. PT), and NASA is streaming live mission coverage of the countdown on two different YouTube channels.

NASA has fueled up the 322-foot-tall SLS rocket with liquid hydrogen and oxygen, and there’s an 80% chance of acceptable weather for launch. Rain showers are the main concern.

Artemis 2 is the first crewed test flight in a series leading up to a moon landing that’s currently scheduled for 2028. It follows Artemis 1, which sent a crewless Orion space capsule around the moon in 2022. This time, four astronauts will be riding inside Orion: NASA mission commander Reid Wiseman, NASA astronauts Christina Koch and Victor Glover, and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen. Koch will be the first woman to go beyond Earth orbit, and Hansen will be the first non-American to do so.

Although the astronauts won’t be landing on the lunar surface, they’ll follow a figure-8 trajectory that will send them 4,700 miles beyond the far side of the moon and make them the farthest-flung travelers in human history.

Advertisement

Last week, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman laid out a plan for establishing a permanent base on the moon and preparing for even farther trips into the solar system. On the eve of the launch, Isaacman played up the significance of Artemis 2 in that plan. “The next era of exploration begins,” he said in a post to X.

Senior test director Jeff Spaulding, a veteran of the space shuttle program, said he was looking forward to the mission. “I’m excited about going to the moon,” he told reporters. “I’m excited about establishing a presence there. It’s something that I have had a desire for, for a great many years — and then to get humans out to Mars as well.”

The health of the Artemis 2 astronauts will be monitored during the flight to gauge the effects of deep-space travel. The crew will also assess Orion’s performance and practice in-flight safety procedures. For example, they’ll rehearse the protocol for taking shelter from radiation storms that might flare up during trips beyond Earth’s protective magnetosphere. They’ll also participate in experiments and make observations of the moon’s far side.

“They’re going to be able to see the whole moon as a lunar disk on the lunar far side,” Marie Henderson, lunar science deputy lead for the Artemis 2 mission, said in a NASA video. “So, that’s a brand-new, unique perspective that humans haven’t been able to look at before.”

Advertisement

At the end of the trip, the crew and their Orion capsule are due to splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. They’ll be brought to a recovery ship for medical checkouts and their return to shore, following a routine that became familiar during the Apollo era.

Artemis 2 is about the history of America’s space program as well as its future. The round-the-moon mission profile matches that of Apollo 8, which served as a unifying event for a nation riven by the social tumult of the time. That mission’s commander, Frank Borman, reported receiving a telegram reading, “Congratulations to the crew of Apollo 8. You saved 1968.” Notably, less than a third of Americans living today were around when Apollo 8 flew.

The main motivation for the Apollo program was America’s superpower competition with the Soviet Union, and today, the geopolitical stakes are similarly high. NASA and the White House are seeking to jump-start progress on Artemis in part because China is targeting a crewed moon landing by 2030.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said this week during a visit to Seattle-area suppliers for the Artemis program that it’s important for America to get to the moon first. “We’re trying to get the best real estate on the moon,” she said. “So, to do that, you’ve got to get up there to claim it.”

Advertisement

The course of the Artemis program, which is named after the goddess of the moon and the twin sister of Apollo in Greek mythology, hasn’t always run smooth. When the program was given its name in 2019, the Artemis 2 mission was planned for 2022 or 2023, with the moon landing scheduled for 2024. The cost of the program has been estimated at $93 billion through 2025, with each Artemis launch costing $4.1 billion.

Artemis 2’s launch team ran into several challenges during this year’s preparations for launch. Liftoff was initially scheduled for February, but a liquid hydrogen leak forced NASA to reset the launch for March. The launch date was reset again when a helium pressurization problem required a rocket rollback for repairs. The SLS was brought back out to the pad on March 20, and preparations went smoothly since then.

Several companies with a presence in the Seattle area are banking on Artemis’ success. For example, a facility in Redmond operated by L3Harris (previously known as Aerojet Rocketdyne) builds thrusters for the Orion spacecraft and is already working ahead on the Artemis 8 mission.

Boeing is the lead contractor for the SLS rocket’s core stage. Karman Space & Defense in Mukilteo provides hatch release mechanisms and parachute deployment hardware for Orion. And Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture, based in Kent, is developing a Blue Moon lander that future Artemis crews could ride to the lunar surface.

Advertisement

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket is expected to send an uncrewed cargo version of its lander to the moon sometime in the next few months.

Read more: Artemis 2 gets a push from Pacific Northwest tech

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Engineer Slips Lightning Back Into the iPhone 17 Pro With One Inventive Case

Published

on

iPhone 17 Pro Lightning Port Case
Ken Pillonel, a Swiss engineer, struck again. He’s well-known for refurbishing outdated iPhones with creative add-on cases, which he even sells. This time, however, he turned the tables. On April 1st, he completed a totally new prototype in just a few days, a slim protective cover that hands the iPhone 17 Pro a working Lightning port right where Apple moved on from it.



If you’ve recently updated from an iPhone 14 or earlier, you understand the pain. All of those old cords, docks, and chargers you used to love are now rendered worthless unless you carry a separate adapter with you everywhere. Pillonel effectively solved the challenge by working in reverse. Instead of forcing the phone to use a newer plug, he designed a cover that allows Lightning cables to plug right in while the iPhone 17 Pro remains safely tucked inside its USB-C shell.

Sale


Wireless Charger Stand Charging Station: 3 in 1 Charger Stand Multiple Devices for Apple – iPhone 17 16e…
  • 3 in 1 Wireless Charger Station: This 3-in-1 wireless charger is designed to work seamlessly with a variety of devices, including iPhone 17 16e…
  • Fast Charging Power: Ensure your devices are efficiently charged with up to 7.5W for phones, 5W for earbuds, and 3W for watches. The charger is…
  • Portable and Foldable Design: Featuring a foldable, lightweight design, this charging station is ideal for home, office, travel or trip. Manufacturer…

iPhone 17 Pro Lightning Port Case
It all starts with some careful effort on the electronics side. He designed tiny custom circuit boards to shrink a standard USB-C to Lightning adapter down to almost nothing. These boards are located inside the bottom border of the casing and add only a few mils of thickness. Next came the casing, which was produced in flexible TPU using a high-end 3D printer that is good at reducing waste. He also made a little jig to help get the MagSafe magnets in the appropriate place, and when he snapped everything together, it fit like a charm, no tools required.

iPhone 17 Pro Lightning Port Case
When it’s all put together, the case feels exactly like any other you’d get in a store, soft to the touch and durable enough for daily use. When you insert the iPhone 17 Pro inside, the internal cables align neatly with the phone’s USB-C port. Plugging a Lightning cable into the new hole outside just works; power flows exactly like it would on an older model. Yes, charging works well, as he demonstrated in his whole build video; now he just needs to test data transfer and other accessories.

iPhone 17 Pro Lightning Port Case
Pillonel never meant to sell this one. He refers to the finished piece as one of the oddest things he has ever put together, a tongue-in-cheek reference to Lightning’s official departure from the roster years ago. Nonetheless, the project illustrates a wider point. With some work and the correct parts, compatibility gaps between old and new technology can be bridged in inventive ways that keep favorite accessories alive.
[Source]

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025