Google is renaming NotebookLM to Gemini Notebook, folding one of its most popular AI products into the Gemini brand while keeping it as a standalone tool. The company said on Thursday that the rebrand reflects how deeply the research assistant has been woven into the broader Google ecosystem, including the Gemini app and Google Search. More than 30 million people and over 600,000 organizations now use the tool, which Google first introduced as Project Tailwind at I/O 2023.

The name change arrives alongside a significant expansion of the tool’s most powerful feature. Last month, Google gave every notebook a secure cloud computer capable of writing and running code against a user’s uploaded sources, enabling complex data analysis, charts, and new output formats including spreadsheets and slide decks. That update was limited to Google AI Ultra subscribers and select Workspace business accounts, but with the Gemini Notebook rebrand, Google is rolling it out to AI Pro users on the web over the coming weeks.

The cloud computing environment runs Python scripts inside a secure container, processing tables and generating visualizations directly from the documents a user has uploaded. Digital Trends reported that the June update also moved the tool onto a new reasoning engine and added support for generating PDFs and structured data files. Google has not said when or whether free-tier users will gain access to code execution.

Beyond the rebrand, Google is pushing notebooks into more surfaces across its product line. Users can already create and access notebooks directly within the Gemini app, with full cross-app syncing between the two experiences. Google said it plans to bring notebooks into AI Mode in Search as well, though it did not share a timeline, a move that would place the research tool inside the same AI-driven search interface that now serves more than one billion monthly users.

The rebrand continues a pattern Google has followed across its AI lineup, absorbing experimental products into the Gemini brand once they prove successful. NotebookLM’s core proposition, grounding AI responses exclusively in user-provided sources rather than the open web, remains unchanged. Josh Woodward, VP of Google Labs, the Gemini app, and AI Studio, oversees the product and outlined Google’s broader AI integration strategy at I/O 2026 in May.

Whether the Gemini Notebook name helps or hurts the product’s identity is an open question. NotebookLM built its reputation precisely because it felt distinct from the chatbot-style Gemini experience, and some users may see the rebrand as a sign that Google is prioritizing brand consistency over the product’s independent character. The tool itself is better than it has ever been, but the name now carries the weight of an AI brand that Google has applied to everything from laptops to smart glasses.

North American buyers interested in the new Marantz MODEL 70 Integrated Amplifier can put their wallets away. Marantz has confirmed that the €850 component will not be sold in North America, leaving customers on this side of the Atlantic with only the matching CD 70 CD Player.

That is disappointing because the MODEL 70 looks like a thoughtful modernization of the long-running PM6007 formula, adding HDMI ARC, improved Bluetooth support and a more contemporary industrial design without turning the amplifier into another app-dependent streaming box.

North American buyers are not entirely out of options, however. The roughly $1,000 Marantz MODEL M1 Network Amplifier earned our 2025 Editor’s Choice Award and remains a compact, streaming-focused alternative worth considering.

European buyers will be able to purchase the MODEL 70 for €850 or £749. The CD 70 will be offered more broadly for $750 USD, $999 CAD, €600 or £499, with availability beginning August 15, 2026.

Marantz describes both components as successors to the PM6007 integrated amplifier ($750) and CD6007 CD player ($650), two of the brand’s most successful entry-level products. The new models retain the traditional full-width component format but adopt the cleaner design language used by Marantz’s more expensive MODEL Series products.

Both will be available in Black and Silver/Gold finishes.

Related Reviews:

Marantz MODEL 70 Integrated Amplifier

The MODEL 70 is a conventional two-channel integrated amplifier built around an upgraded current-feedback Class A/B output stage delivering 50 watts per channel.

That represents a modest increase over the PM6007, which is rated at 45 watts per channel into 8 ohms. More importantly, Marantz says the MODEL 70 uses an enhanced power supply and larger toroidal transformer intended to improve dynamics, loudspeaker control and overall authority.

Marantz has not disclosed the impedance or distortion conditions attached to the 50-watt rating, so it would be premature to draw conclusions about how much usable power the amplifier can deliver into more demanding 4-ohm loudspeakers.

The analog section incorporates Marantz’s proprietary HDAM circuitry, along with an internal DAC for digital sources. An MM phono stage allows a turntable to be connected directly, although moving-coil cartridge users will still require an external phono preamplifier or step-up device.

Where the MODEL 70 separates itself most clearly from the PM6007 is connectivity.

An HDMI ARC input allows the amplifier to handle television audio, with HDMI CEC providing volume control from a compatible TV remote. Marantz has also expanded Bluetooth functionality to support both transmission and reception.

Supported codecs include aptX Adaptive, aptX HD, AAC and SBC. Music can therefore be streamed from compatible phones and tablets, while the amplifier can also transmit audio to Bluetooth headphones for private music or television listening.

The MODEL 70 includes analog and digital inputs, along with preamplifier and subwoofer outputs. Marantz has not yet provided the number or type of each connection, nor has it disclosed the DAC chipset, maximum PCM and DSD resolutions, dimensions, weight or complete amplifier measurements.

Marantz has not mentioned HEOS, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, AirPlay 2 or integrated network streaming in the initial launch material. That may reflect an incomplete specification list, because a new Marantz integrated amplifier arriving in 2026 without HEOS would make very little sense. If those features are genuinely absent, the MODEL 70 would feel needlessly limited rather than refreshingly traditional, particularly when network playback has become central to Marantz’s modern product ecosystem.

MODEL 70 vs. STEREO 70s

The naming will inevitably create some confusion because Marantz already sells the STEREO 70s Network Stereo Receiver in North America for $1,200.

Despite their similar names and HDMI connectivity, these are not variations of the same product.

The STEREO 70s delivers 75 watts per channel and includes six HDMI inputs, three of which support 8K video. It also offers HEOS streaming, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, AirPlay 2, an AM/FM tuner, two subwoofer outputs and extensive television and gaming support.

The MODEL 70 is rated at 50 watts per channel and appears to offer a single HDMI ARC connection rather than functioning as a video-switching hub. It focuses more narrowly on two-channel audio, with a toroidal transformer, current-feedback amplification, HDAM circuitry, Bluetooth transmission and a built-in MM phono stage.

The practical difference is simpler: European buyers will receive a modern replacement for the PM6007, while North American customers looking for a Marantz amplifier with HDMI will have to consider the more feature-heavy and more expensive STEREO 70s.

Marantz CD 70 CD Player

The CD 70 is the component North American customers will actually be able to purchase, and its $750 price makes it one of the more interesting Marantz digital products in recent memory.

At its core, the CD 70 is a dedicated compact disc player incorporating the same high-performance DAC used in the MODEL 70, along with Marantz HDAM circuitry in the analog output stage.

A front-panel USB-A input expands playback beyond compact discs, with support for FLAC HD, ALAC, AIFF and DSD files stored on compatible USB devices. Marantz has not yet disclosed the maximum sampling rates or DSD resolution.

Construction upgrades include an improved power supply, double-layered chassis base, rigid isolation feet and strategically positioned copper hardware intended to reduce noise, vibration and electrical interference.

The CD 70 also includes a fully discrete headphone amplifier using HDAM technology. Adjustable gain should make it suitable for a wider selection of headphones, while automatic detection activates the headphone output when a plug is inserted.

Marantz has not yet confirmed whether the CD 70 includes optical and coaxial digital outputs, selectable digital filters, CD-R and CD-RW compatibility or the ability to function as a standalone DAC for external digital sources.

Those details matter, particularly when comparing it with the existing CD 60.

CD 70 vs. CD 60

The CD 70 will sell for $750 in the United States, making it $350 less expensive than the current $1,100 CD 60.

On the surface, the two players offer considerable feature overlap. Both use Marantz HDAM circuitry, include front-panel USB-A playback, support high-resolution PCM and DSD files and provide headphone amplifiers with adjustable gain.

The CD 60 supports CD and CD-R/RW playback, PCM files up to 24-bit/192kHz and DSD up to 5.6MHz. It also includes two selectable digital filters, fixed analog outputs and both optical and coaxial digital outputs. Its audio stage uses Marantz HDAM and HDAM-SA2 modules, while the chassis weighs 7.5 kilograms and includes an aluminum center panel.

Marantz has not provided enough information to determine how the CD 70’s transport mechanism, DAC implementation, analog output stage or overall construction compare with those of the CD 60.

The lower price suggests that there will be differences, but it would be unwise to invent them before the complete specifications arrive. A less expensive product does not automatically mean a lesser-sounding one, especially when the newer model benefits from several years of component and manufacturing development.

The more logical comparison may ultimately be with the CD6007, which remains available in the United States for $650. The CD 70 costs only $100 more while adding the current Marantz design, revised internal construction and a new DAC and headphone platform.

That could make the CD 70 the new value option in the range rather than a direct replacement for the more substantially constructed CD 60.

Familiar Marantz Design Without the Premium Price

Marantz has adopted the visual language of its more expensive MODEL Series components, including a symmetrical front panel, circular center display and full-width chassis.

The company says both models use vibration-resistant construction, optimized internal layouts and carefully selected components. Packaging has also been revised with FSC-certified cardboard and paper-based protective materials to reduce plastic consumption.

There is a substantial amount of marketing language about “culture-driven consumers” and audio becoming part of the home environment, but the underlying strategy is sound. Entry-level components no longer need to resemble laboratory equipment designed during the Carter administration.

The Bottom Line

The MODEL 70 may be the more interesting of the two products because it combines traditional Class A/B amplification, a toroidal transformer, MM phono stage, HDMI ARC and modern Bluetooth support in a relatively affordable full-size integrated amplifier.

Unfortunately, North American buyers will not get it.

The CD 70 is considerably better news. At $750, it lands only $100 above the CD6007 while undercutting the CD 60 by $350. Its combination of dedicated CD playback, high-resolution USB support, HDAM circuitry and a discrete headphone amplifier could make it one of the strongest values in the Marantz lineup.

There is still a lack of transparency surrounding the MODEL 70’s network capabilities. Marantz has not confirmed support for HEOS, AirPlay 2, Wi-Fi or Ethernet, which would be a surprising omission from a new integrated amplifier in 2026. It may simply be a case of incomplete launch specifications, but buyers should not have to guess whether a core part of the modern Marantz ecosystem is included.

Complete specifications will determine whether the CD 70 is merely a better-dressed CD6007 replacement or something capable of making the more expensive CD 60 rather uncomfortable. They will also reveal whether the MODEL 70 is a genuinely modern integrated amplifier or a product undermined by connectivity decisions that make little sense at this stage.

Pricing & Availability

Both new 2026 Marantz hi-fi products will be available in Black or Silver/Gold finishes at the following prices:

• Marantz MODEL 70 Integrated Amplifier – €850, £749 (a release date hasn’t been set at this time, but won’t be available in the North America)
• Marantz CD 70 CD Player – $750 USD, $999 CAD, €600, £499 (available August 15, 2026)

Related Reading:

Skullcandy has introduced two new wireless over-ear headphones built around its defining Crusher feature: adjustable bass that is designed to be physically felt as well as heard.

The Crusher 1080 ANC costs $279.99 and combines Skullcandy’s sensory bass system with a suite of licensed Sound by Bose technologies. Those include Bose QuietControl active noise cancellation, TrueSpatial audio, the WaveForm Audio Engine, SpeechClarity voice processing and Bose Sound Design tuning.

The Crusher 720 costs $209.99. It retains adjustable Crusher Bass but drops active noise cancellation and the Bose processing package. In their place are THX Spatial Audio, Personal Sound by Mimi, an adjustable Stay-Aware mode and up to 65 hours of battery life.

Although they share the same basic concept and industrial design, these are not simply one headphone offered with or without ANC.

Related Reviews:

What Makes Crusher Bass Different?

Conventional bass-heavy headphones rely on larger drivers, elevated low-frequency tuning or digital signal processing. Crusher adds dedicated bass drivers that create physical vibration alongside the sound produced by the primary full-range drivers.

The level can be adjusted using a wheel on the earcup or through the Skullcandy app. Users can reduce the tactile effect to a mild reinforcement or increase it until subtlety leaves the building by the nearest available exit on the Garden State Parkway.

Skullcandy positions the system for music, movies and gaming, where low-frequency impact can add another dimension to kick drums, electronic bass, explosions and vehicle effects. The company does not disclose the size, frequency range or power requirements of the separate bass drivers in either new model.

That adjustable tactile system remains the feature competitors do not directly replicate. Sony, Beats, Bose and Sennheiser can deliver substantial conventional bass, but they do not offer a separate physical bass control performing the same role.

Crusher 1080 ANC

The Crusher 1080 ANC is the flagship of the pair and the more consequential release.

Skullcandy describes Sound by Bose as a suite of Bose-licensed audio technologies. Bose is not manufacturing or selling the headphone; the underlying hardware, product design, app integration and Crusher Bass system remain Skullcandy’s.

The Bose package includes:

• Bose QuietControl active noise cancellation
• Bose TrueSpatial audio with head tracking
• Bose WaveForm Audio Engine
• Bose SpeechClarity voice pickup
• Bose Sound Design tuning
• Bose-tuned Music, Movie and Podcast EQ modes
• Adjustable Aware transparency mode

QuietControl uses six microphones and adaptive processing to reduce surrounding noise. Users can switch among Quiet, Aware and ANC Off modes using the headphone controls or Skullcandy app. Skullcandy has not published attenuation measurements, so comparisons with Bose’s own QuietComfort models will require independent testing.

TrueSpatial is intended to create a wider, more speaker-like presentation for music, movies and games. Skullcandy also lists head tracking, which keeps the apparent soundstage in place as the listener moves.

The WaveForm Audio Engine manages the overall presentation across different playback levels. Skullcandy says the processing is intended to preserve vocal clarity, tonal balance and lower distortion as the volume and Crusher Bass settings increase. That is a useful objective because tactile bass is not particularly valuable if the midrange has been buried beneath it.

SpeechClarity handles voice pickup during telephone and video calls, while natural sidetone lets users hear some of their own voice rather than shouting into a conference call like someone directing aircraft on a carrier deck.

The Crusher 1080 ANC uses 36mm primary drivers with a claimed frequency response of 20Hz to 20kHz, a nominal impedance of 36 ohms and a listed weight of 374.2 grams. That is heavy for a wireless travel headphone and substantially heavier than the existing 332-gram Crusher ANC 2. Comfort and weight distribution will therefore matter almost as much as the specifications.

Battery life is rated at:

• 60 hours with ANC off
• 50 hours with ANC on
• Four hours of playback from a ten-minute charge

Bluetooth 5.3 includes LE Audio, Auracast, multipoint pairing, Google Fast Pair, automatic reconnection and a low-latency mode. Wear detection can pause playback and activate automatic power-off.

The Skullcandy app provides control over Crusher Bass, Bose noise cancellation, spatial processing, preset EQ modes, a customizable five-band equalizer, button assignments, sidetone and other smart features.

The headphones fold flat and collapse for storage. Skullcandy includes a 3.5mm analog cable, USB-C charging cable and roll-top travel bag.

Available finishes are True Black, Candy, Primer and Cement.

Crusher 720

The Crusher 720 is the less expensive model, but it is not merely a stripped-down Crusher 1080 ANC.

It uses larger 40.7mm primary drivers and retains the independently adjustable Crusher Bass system. Instead of Bose TrueSpatial, it includes THX Spatial Audio, which Skullcandy says creates a more immersive, multidimensional presentation for music, movies and gaming.

Skullcandy’s dedicated Crusher 720 product description does not clearly confirm head tracking, so we would not assume that the feature is included based solely on the company’s currently inconsistent comparison tables.

The Crusher 720 also includes Personal Sound by Mimi. The system analyzes the user’s hearing and creates a customized profile intended to compensate for frequencies that may be less audible to that individual.

There is no active noise cancellation. An adjustable Stay-Aware mode uses the microphones to pass surrounding sound through the headphones when the listener needs to hear traffic, announcements or another human being attempting to attract their attention.

Battery life is rated at 65 hours, with four hours available from a ten-minute charge.

Other features include:

• Bluetooth 5.3
• LE Audio and Auracast
• Multipoint pairing
• Google Fast Pair
• Wear detection and automatic power-off
• Low-latency audio
• Clear Voice microphone processing
• Adjustable call sidetone
• Music, Bass Boost and Podcast EQ modes
• Five-band custom EQ
• App customization
• 3.5mm analog input
• Flat-folding and collapsible construction

The Crusher 720 has a claimed frequency response of 20Hz to 20kHz, a nominal impedance of 36 ohms and a listed weight of 362.8 grams. It is lighter than the Crusher 1080 ANC, but nobody is likely to mistake it for a featherweight travel headphone.

Skullcandy includes a 3.5mm cable, USB-C charging cable and drawstring travel bag.

The five finishes are Future, Plasma, True Black, Cement and Primer.

Crusher 1080 ANC vs. Crusher 720

The $70 price difference buys more than active noise cancellation.

The Crusher 1080 ANC adds Bose QuietControl ANC, TrueSpatial with head tracking, the WaveForm Audio Engine, SpeechClarity and Bose-developed sound tuning. It is the better option for frequent travelers, commuters and anyone who wants the most complete version of Skullcandy’s sensory bass platform.

The Crusher 720 offers longer battery life, THX Spatial Audio and hearing personalization for less money. It is likely the more sensible choice for home listening, casual gaming and movie playback when active noise cancellation is not required.

The 720 also avoids paying for ANC that some users will rarely activate. That matters because a substantial portion of the Crusher audience is likely using these headphones at home, in a dorm room or in front of a television rather than attempting to erase the sound of an aircraft cabin.

Who Are They For?

Both models are aimed first at listeners who actively want elevated, physical low-frequency impact.

Hip-hop, electronic music, pop, action movies and games are the obvious applications. The adjustable bass system may also appeal to listeners who use headphones at lower playback levels but still want to feel some of the scale normally associated with loudspeakers and subwoofers.

The Crusher 1080 ANC is better suited to:

• Frequent travelers and commuters
• Listeners who want strong bass without giving up ANC
• Mobile gaming and movie playback
• Existing Crusher users looking for a more complete flagship
• Buyers interested in Bose processing at a lower price than Bose’s premium headphones

The Crusher 720 is more appropriate for:

• Home listening
• Casual gaming
• Buyers who do not require ANC
• Users who value battery life and hearing personalization
• Existing Crusher Evo owners looking for spatial processing and newer connectivity

Neither model is aimed primarily at listeners seeking neutral studio-monitor tuning, the lowest possible weight or a traditional audiophile presentation. These are sensory-bass headphones by design, not a secret replacement for an open-back headphones from Beyerdynamic or Grado Labs.

Main Competitors

The most direct external rival is the Sony ULT Wear. Sony also targets bass-focused listeners and includes ANC, an ambient mode and up to 30 hours of battery life at a regular price of $249.99. Sony uses conventional driver tuning and DSP rather than dedicated tactile bass drivers, making it the closest competitor in audience but not in operation.

The Sennheiser Momentum 4 Wireless currently sits close to the Crusher 1080 ANC in price. It offers adaptive ANC, a 42mm driver, customizable sound and up to 60 hours of battery life. Sennheiser is the more obvious choice for listeners prioritizing tonal balance and conventional high-fidelity sound, while Skullcandy offers the more physical and deliberately bass-focused experience.

The Beats Studio Pro provides ANC, transparency, personalized spatial audio with dynamic head tracking and lossless wired playback through USB-C or 3.5mm. Battery life reaches 40 hours with ANC disabled. Beats also offers tighter integration with Apple and Android devices, but it does not provide adjustable tactile bass.

The standard Bose QuietComfort Headphones remain a major competitor for travel and noise cancellation. They offer Bose’s established ANC and a significantly lighter, more conventional design, but only 24 hours of battery life and none of Skullcandy’s tactile low-frequency hardware.

Skullcandy’s Crusher ANC 2 from 2023 sits directly between the two new models at $239.99 but is often on sale for less at Amazon. It offers adjustable four-microphone ANC, Mimi Personal Sound and up to 60 hours of battery life, but lacks the newer Bose processing, spatial audio and Auracast support of the Crusher 1080 ANC.

Unless it receives a substantial price cut, the Crusher ANC 2 may now occupy an awkward middle seat sandwiched between siblings that don’t feel the need to share those lousy airline crackers. Do people actually eat that garbage?

Key Features Compared

What Skullcandy Has Not Confirmed

Skullcandy does not list support for LDAC, aptX Adaptive or aptX Lossless. Both models support LE Audio and Auracast, but the complete Bluetooth codec set has not been published.

The company also does not state whether the USB-C connection supports digital audio playback or is limited to charging.

Neither model has a published IP resistance rating.

Skullcandy has not confirmed whether Crusher Bass, spatial processing and other powered features remain available through the 3.5mm connection or when the battery is depleted.

The Bottom Line

The Crusher 1080 ANC and Crusher 720 are unusual because Skullcandy is not attempting to copy the premium wireless headphone market feature for feature.

The company already owns a distinct position with adjustable tactile bass. The new models attempt to build better-rounded wireless headphones around that technology.

The Crusher 1080 ANC is the more important of the two. Bose’s licensed technologies address noise cancellation, spatial presentation, call quality, volume-dependent processing and overall sound tuning. The intention is clear: retain the physical impact of Crusher Bass while improving everything around it.

The Crusher 720 makes a different calculation. It removes ANC, lowers the price and adds THX Spatial Audio, Mimi personalization and longer battery life. For buyers who use their headphones primarily at home, that may be the better value.

Neither model will appeal to listeners who regard tactile bass as an attack on public order. For the audience that already understands why Crusher exists, however, these are the most complete versions of the concept so far.

Now we need to hear whether Bose has helped Skullcandy control the bass or merely taught it better tray table manners for those awkward meals next to Karens at 30,000 feet.

Price & Availability

Related Reading:

For most of the last two decades, enterprise security ran on a workable assumption: the environment was knowable. Security teams could buy tools, inventory users, map systems, define policies, and rely on vendor-built dashboards and workflows to manage most of what happened next.

The model was imperfect, but it worked because the environment changed at human speed.

AI agents broke that assumption, and with it, the playbook.

Agents are not ordinary applications. They act autonomously, invoke tools, acquire access across systems, and change behavior based on context. Some are sanctioned and run in SaaS platforms. Others are unsanctioned and run locally. They can borrow human access and disappear before the next inventory scan.

They also vary enormously in what they can reach; Token Security research on how enterprises are actually deploying agents found everything from human-triggered chatbots to autonomous production services, with more than a fifth of local agents already holding direct access to production data sources.

The build-vs-buy conversation in cybersecurity has now fundamentally changed. The old question was simple: should we buy a tool or build one ourselves? In the agentic era, that framing is too narrow.

Security teams do not need to rebuild the entire stack, but also can’t rely on fixed workflows someone else created months earlier.

The better question is: which layer should security teams own?

The Limits of Fixed Security Workflows

AI agents make environments more specific, more dynamic, and harder to anticipate. A vendor can build a dashboard for common risks: overprivileged service accounts, stale credentials, dormant admin users, excessive permissions, and identities with access to production systems.

That is useful, but the most important questions are often specific to a single environment.

• Which agents created in the past two weeks can reach production through inherited human credentials?
• Which local coding agents still have active tokens after a project ended?
• What is a potential attack path from one system to another using AI agents?

These questions do not fit neatly into a generic workflow. They depend on the organization’s cloud footprint, SaaS stack, development practices, ownership model, compliance requirements, and AI adoption patterns. No vendor roadmap can anticipate every combination.

That is the operationalization gap. Security teams can often identify risk categories, but they cannot always translate them into the exact remediation path their environment requires. AI agents widen this gap because they move faster than traditional tooling cycles.

Waiting two quarters for a vendor feature while agents continue accumulating access is not an effective security strategy. It is a queue.

Why “Just Build It” Is Not the Answer

AI-assisted development has changed what teams can build. Retool’s 2026 Build vs. Buy report found that 35% of teams had already replaced at least one SaaS tool with something they built themselves, and 78% expected to build more this year.

This trend has real security implications, since AI has made building custom tools far faster and easier. Work that once took weeks of engineering can now be prototyped in hours.

But cybersecurity has a harder problem than most business functions: the data layer. A useful security workflow is only as good as the identity, access, permission, ownership, and activity data underneath it. Building a custom app is one thing. Connecting it safely to live enterprise systems is another.

Security teams should not have to rebuild integrations across AWS, Azure, GitHub, Salesforce, Okta, secret managers, CI/CD pipelines, SaaS platforms, agent frameworks, and on-prem systems.

They should not have to normalize every schema themselves or maintain fragile scripts that break when an upstream API changes.

That is the hidden cost of “just build it.” The hard part is not generating code but building on data that is live, normalized, secure, and complete enough to support real decisions.

Buy the Foundation to Own the Operational Layer

The future of cybersecurity is not pure build or pure buy. It is building on the right foundation.

Security teams should invest in the layers that are structurally complex and widely adopted across organizations: continuous discovery, integrations, normalization, identity correlation, access mapping, governance controls, auditability, and secure execution boundaries.

Those capabilities require depth, scale, and constant maintenance. They are not where most security teams should spend their scarce engineering time.

But teams should own the operational layer: the workflows, applications, reports, reviews, and automations that reflect their specific environment.

That is where differentiation lives. That is where security teams encode how their organization actually works: who owns which agents, which systems matter most, what access is acceptable, which exceptions are allowed, how risk is prioritized, and what remediation should happen next.

The winning model is not “buy everything” or “build everything.” It is “buy the foundation, build the operating layer.”

Identity is the layer that holds

For AI agents, the foundation has to be identity. Every meaningful agent eventually requires access. It authenticates, uses credentials, invokes tools, and reaches data.

Often, it does not even have an identity of its own and instead borrows one from an employee, which is why the agents already running within enterprises can be indistinguishable from the people they impersonate in your audit logs.

That is why identity is the only control plane that actually governs agentic AI, and why it is the foundation on which to build. It is the one place your team can see and enforce discovery, ownership, access, and lifecycle for every agent at once.

Guardrails, prompt filtering, and behavior controls act on what an agent says. Identity governs what an agent can reach, and reach is what determines blast radius.

A live identity foundation gives security teams the context they need to ask and answer the questions that matter:

• Who owns this agent?
• What is it supposed to do?
• Which identities does it use?
• What systems can it reach?
• Does its access match its intent?
• What happens when it is abandoned, compromised, or changed?

Without that foundation, custom workflows sit on sand. They rely on stale exports, partial inventories, and one-off scripts.

With it, security teams can build operational logic that stays connected to the real environment as agents appear, change, and disappear.

The teams that stay effective

The security playbook built for a knowable environment is not coming back. AI agents made sure of that. The next playbook is more adaptive.

It assumes the environment will keep changing. It assumes no vendor can prebuild every workflow. It assumes security teams need the ability to compose controls, reports, reviews, and remediation paths that fit their own reality.

But it also recognizes that teams should not rebuild the foundation themselves. The teams that stay ahead will not be the ones with the longest tool list or the most generic dashboards. They will be the ones who know which layer to own.

For agentic AI, the answer is clear: build on a live identity foundation and own the operational layer that must adapt. In the agent era, that is how security teams move fast without losing control.

If you’re looking to secure your agentic AI, book a quick technical demo with Token Security to see how they can secure your organization as you scale.

Sponsored and written by Token Security.

Ever looking to underline its space-faring pedigree, Omega has again joined forces with Swatch to release another limited-edition MoonSwatch featuring Omega’s proprietary 18K Moonshine Gold alloy.

But whereas previous special versions had only a sliver of the shiny stuff, this new model doesn’t hold back, featuring a dial, hands, crown, and pushers all made from Omega’s 18K Moonshine Gold alloy, with a combined weight of 11 grams.

Called the Mission to the Moon 1969, the watch commemorates the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 21, 1969. It’s limited, rather appropriately, to 1,969 numbered pieces and comes with a black-and-gold version of Swatch’s upgraded rubber MoonSwatch straps.

Photograph: Courtesy of Swatch

Swatch says the gold used for these limited-edition pieces dates from around 1969, coming from old Omega spare parts that have been melted down in the company’s own foundry. In 1969, 11 grams of 18K gold apparently cost $11, so Swatch decided to price the gold in this MoonSwatch based on the price of gold on July 21, 1969, instead of today’s gold price. This means the Mission to the Moon 1969 retails for around $620.

Perhaps thinking of the chaos that consumed Swatch stores worldwide in May during the launch of the Audemars Piguet x Swatch Royal Pop—itself a repeat of the fury surrounding the MoonSwatch launch four years ago—Swatch is making this limited edition available to buy online. The catch, however, is that to get your hands on one, you have to fill out an “ESTA” or Electronic Swatch Timepiece Application.

Photograph: Courtesy of Swatch

Photograph: Courtesy of Swatch

Apple’s main processor supplier TSMC has announced another increase in US investment, saying its new plants will include ones making its most advanced chips.

In May 2026, TSMC announced an additional $20 billion investment in its Arizona plants. Now according to the Financial Times, the company has revealed plans to build four more plants, costing a total of $100 billion.

Howard Lutnick, US commerce secretary, said that the extra investment would “create tens of thousands of American jobs and bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to America.”

The investment in new plants will reportedly include factories making “2nm and below” processors, plus advanced packaging. TSMC’s first Arizona plant is believed to be producing 4-nanometer wafers, though there were already plans for 2nm manufacturing by 2030.

In 2025, it was reported that TSMC’s Arizona plants were producing the A16 processor. That was used in the iPhone 14 and iPhone 15 ranges, which have not been in production for some time.

TSMC has not announced a schedule for the new investment. CEO CC Wei said that “we will try to speed it up as fast as possible,” but that it depends on “the market situation and customer demand.”

This announcement increases TSMC’s total US investment to $265 billion, and follows the company’s latest financial earnings report. That report says TSMC profits rose 77% and the company attributes this to the demand for AI processors.

CEO Wei said he believes that demand for AI processors will remain very strong until 2029-2030.

It is this demand that is causing the global shortage of chips, and consequently a drive to add new production facilities. There is also a political element for TSMC, which as the CIA privately briefed Tim Cook, has reasons to fear a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by 2027.

There has also been continued pressure from the Trump administration to reshore manufacturing. One of the reasons Apple secured an exemption from Trump’s tariffs is said to be a commitment to buy processors from US-based Intel.

That deal is said to be a multi-year commitment. It follows the Trump administration investing in Intel in return for shares.

from the stopping-the-stoppers dept

Florida Republicans’ bigoted little piece of speech policing — the former “Stop WOKE Act” — has already been terminated multiple times by federal courts. Two lawsuits with two sets of plaintiffs have generated the same results: a ruling declaring the law unconstitutional and an injunction blocking the state from enforcing it.

The law aims to directly regulate speech in classrooms, allowing the government to punish teachers and administrators from engaging in any speech the Florida GOP doesn’t agree with. In practice, this means eliminating discussions about racism, equitable treatment, or anything related to LGBTQ+ issues.

The two lawsuits have generated some pretty stark paragraphs from presiding judges. Both take their cues from pop culture. Noting the cognitive dissonance of state lawmaking, the court said this in 2022:

In the popular television series Stranger Things, the “upside down” describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. See Stranger Things (Netflix 2022). Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely. 

The same court said this when the second lawsuit against the Stop WOKE law crossed its desk:

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,” and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the State has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of “freedom.” To confront certain viewpoints that offend the powers that be, the State of Florida passed the so-called “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act in 2022—redubbed (in line with the State’s doublespeak) the “Individual Freedom Act.” The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints. Defendants argue that, under this Act, professors enjoy “academic freedom” so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian.

The state appealed both decisions. The Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court upheld the injunction in March 2023. The state continued to assault the court with motions to undo this injunction, prompting the Eleventh Circuit to issue this additional order:

The Clerk is DIRECTED to treat any motion for reconsideration of this order as a non-emergency matter.

Forced to wait its turn, Ron DeSantis and his MAGA buddies have had to wait more than three years just to find out they still won’t be able to enforce this blatantly unconstitutional law. The state’s lawyers will read the whole thing looking for ways to argue this differently if (or when) the US Supreme Court decides to hear their appeal.

But anyone wanting to know how this turns out for Florida’s public service bigots won’t have to dip too far into the 85-page ruling. By the middle of the fourth page, you’ll know what you need to know. From the decision [PDF]:

When several groups of professors challenged Florida’s new restrictions, the State cast about for an existing case or doctrine that could support its speech ban in the university setting. Finding none, it tried to marry public-employee speech cases with government speech doctrine, resulting in a new rule: if the government pays a professor’s salary, it has total control over her classroom speech.

That is not a blessed union. Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry—classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth. This new rule also runs headlong into the Supreme Court’s repeated, if imprecise, endorsements of academic freedom. If the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.

Advertisement

The injunction stays in place, presumably forever. While there are certainly some members of the Supreme Court who would love to tie their precedent and ethics into knots just to block speech they personally don’t like, this doesn’t appear to be the case they’d choose since it would likely generate precedent that might work against the bigots in the Supreme Court when they go to bat for bigots in the White House.

The appeals court has already blocked the other part of the law — the clauses attempting to regulate speech in private workplaces by forbidding mandatory meetings that promoted views the GOP doesn’t agree with. The last ditch attempt to claim the government can regulate speech in college classrooms doesn’t fare any better, even if it’s not quite as clear cut in terms of constitutional violations as telling private companies what they can and can’t say.

Claiming that all speech by government employees is “government speech” is a non-starter. The state couldn’t find precedent to support its novel take on the First Amendment. And the few odds and ends it threw at the judicial wall in hopes of seeing something stick failed as well.

More credibly, the State explains that it also seeks to protect its “most cherished ideals.” But that justification fails, too. Though the government has plenty of ways to promote its own viewpoint, puppeteering every university professor in the state is not one of them.

The court spends 50 pages dismantling each and every one of the state’s arguments, citation by citation. There can be no doubt the law is unconstitutional, not that it matters to the state, which has already announced it will be appealing the ruling. But this is censorship that can’t even be bothered to pretend it’s anything but the very thing it claims it is opposed to. “Individual Freedom Act” (as it was renamed), my ass.

Florida seeks to strip public university professors—and by extension their students—of the ability to fully engage with ideas that are, for better or for worse, very popular in some academic circles. The State asks us to consider its rules a means of targeting discrimination. But hearing an idea you disagree with is not discrimination; it is an opportunity to come up with a better idea, or maybe even change your mind.

There’s a dissent that runs nearly as long as the opinion. Written by Judge Barbara Lagoa (someone with a history of anti-trans rulings), it’s 30+ pages of wasted time. To paraphrase: none of these plaintiffs should have been granted standing, much less relief and also: [bunch of Justice Alito quotes].

Doesn’t really matter, since it’s the dissent but I guarantee if anyone’s going to start polling for an en banc rehearing, it’s going by Judge Lagoa.

Suck it, DeSantis. Until that happens (if it ever will), your stupid hateful law is as dead as the eyes of your sycophants.

Filed Under: 11th circuit appeals court, 1st amendment, florida, free speech, ron desantis, stop woke act, woke

While a new iPad mini is expected before the end of 2026, a new report says you’ll need to wait longer for updates to the entry-level iPad, iPad Air, and iPad Pro.

The most recent rumors of the first update to the iPad mini since October 2024 have claimed that it will be released with an OLED screen before the end of 2026. Now according to Bloomberg, this update is the first of several iPad model refreshes.

Specifically, the report claims that Apple plans to release new iPads from the fall through to spring 2027:

• iPad Mini: October 2026
• iPad: Q1 2027
• iPad Air: spring 2027
• iPad Pro: spring 2027

Back in 2024, it was reported that Apple was planning an OLED iPad mini for release in 2026. To date, the higher-quality screen has solely been used in the iPad Pro, where it doesn’t appear to have been the success that Apple hoped for.

Nonetheless, Apple is said to be intending to eventually transition the whole iPad range over to OLED. The iPad mini, codenamed J510, is to be the first.

It’s not clear what could be the second to get the technology, though, as reports of updates to the rest of the iPad range do not specify their screen type. The report does say that the base iPad will not get OLED yet, and that seems likely given that this screen type would add to cost of that entry-level model.

Instead, the claim is that the new update to the base iPad, codenamed J581, is a faster processor. Apple is not expected to give it a major redesign.

There is also no word of a significant redesign for the iPad Air, whose next 11-inch and 13-inch models are codenamed J807 and J837.

Apple is also not expected to make significant visible changes to the iPad Pro, which the new report says will launch around the same time as the iPad Air. Separately, though, other recent reports have claimed that the iPad Pro will gain vapor chamber cooling in early 2027.

New iPad and iPad Air

The new report backs up rumors from December 2025 when an iOS code leak included references to an A19 iPad and M4 iPad Air. That M4 iPad Air was then released in March 2026, but the base iPad remains on the A16 processor.

The report of an A19 processor is significant, because it means the base iPad will gain support for Apple Intelligence. At present, it’s the only iPad model that doesn’t support it.

Since that March 2026 release of an M4 iPad Air, though, there have been further rumors of what is coming next for this model. In April 2026, for instance, there was a report that the next iPad Air would indeed get an OLED display.

The report said that this iPad Air will feature a lower-cost OLED display than the one in the current iPad Pro. It was also claimed that Samsung is due to start mass production of the screen in December 2026, for a launch round March 2027.

I had to check the decimal point.

According to Luminate’s 2026 Midyear Report, U.S. CD sales increased 16% to 16.3 million units during the first half of the year. Vinyl sales also grew, but by only 2.4%, giving CDs a growth rate nearly seven times higher than records. 

K-pop collectibles contributed heavily, but they do not explain the entire increase. Luminate says CD sales would still have grown 6.7% after removing K-pop releases. Mass-market retailers such as Target and Walmart now account for nearly 30% of physical music sales, aided by elaborate album packages, alternate covers, photo cards and fans willing to buy multiple editions. 

That does not mean CDs have suddenly overtaken vinyl. Growing faster is not the same as being larger.

Related Reviews:

The RIAA Numbers Provide Some Necessary Context

The RIAA has not yet released its corresponding report for the first half of 2026. Its most recent midyear data covers the first six months of 2025, when the CD market looked considerably less healthy.

During that period, the RIAA reported 11.7 million CD units and $108.1 million in wholesale revenue, declines of 22% and 22.3%, respectively. Vinyl reached 22.1 million units and $456.9 million, with both measurements down 1%. 

The RIAA’s complete 2025 report showed vinyl finishing the year at 46.8 million units and $1.043 billion in wholesale revenue, up 7.9% and 9.3%. CDs ended 2025 at 29.5 million units and $312.4 million, down 11.6% and 7.8%. Vinyl therefore sold substantially more copies and generated more than three times as much revenue. 

The Luminate and RIAA figures should not be treated as interchangeable. Luminate tracks music consumption and retail sales, while the RIAA now reports wholesale figures net of returns. They measure different parts of the market and cover different periods.

Even with that caveat, the change is difficult to ignore. The RIAA recorded a steep CD decline in 2025. Luminate is now reporting double-digit growth during the first half of 2026.

Streaming Still Owns the Market

Nobody should mistake this for a revolt against streaming.

Global on-demand audio streams increased 9.8% to 2.8 trillion during the first half of 2026. U.S. streams rose 4.8% to 732.7 billion, while Spanish-language music represented 9.4% of combined U.S. on-demand audio and video streams. 

CDs and vinyl remain relatively small parts of the overall music business. Their importance comes from ownership, collectibility and the stronger connection physical products create between artists and fans.

Why CDs Suddenly Make Sense Again

The compact disc occupies an increasingly attractive middle ground.

New CDs generally cost far less than new vinyl. They are smaller, easier to store and less vulnerable to warping, scratches, off-center pressings and the other quality-control adventures that now accompany a $40 record. They can also be played directly, ripped to local storage or used as permanent backups when a streaming service removes an album or replaces it with a different master.

The used market is even more compelling. Decades of abandoned collections have left record stores, thrift shops and online sellers with enormous quantities of inexpensive discs. Building a serious CD library can still cost less than assembling one shelf of new audiophile vinyl.

CDs also work as collectibles without requiring the manufacturing expense, shipping weight and retail price of vinyl. That is especially important for younger fans who want a tangible connection to an artist but do not necessarily have $45 available every time an album appears in four colored-vinyl variants.

Vinyl made music ownership fashionable again. CDs may now be benefiting from the culture vinyl helped rebuild.

It also means the hardware industry may not have been indulging in collective nostalgia when it began introducing new CD players and transports at almost every price level.

Marantz has just introduced the $750 CD 70, Mission released the affordable 778CDT transport, NAD returned with the $1,399 C 589, and brands including FiiO and Shanling are producing portable CD players with Bluetooth, balanced headphone outputs, USB DAC functionality and disc-ripping capabilities. 

Manufacturers do not make these products because three editors and someone’s uncle in Ohio refuse to discard their copies of Brothers in Arms. They see a market.

Record Store Day also deserves some context in vinyl’s defense. The 2026 event took place on April 18 and again delivered hundreds of limited editions through independent retailers. Its commercial impact is not trivial: during Record Store Day week in 2025, U.S. consumers bought 1.2 million albums, including just over one million vinyl records, according to Luminate.

It was the fifth consecutive Record Store Day week to surpass one million album sales. Vinyl is also coming off 19 consecutive years of U.S. revenue growth and passed $1 billion in annual wholesale revenue during 2025.

Against that mature and substantially larger base, another 2.4% increase during the first half of 2026 is hardly evidence of collapse. CDs delivered the more surprising growth rate, but vinyl remains the larger physical format and the economic foundation of the independent record-store revival.

The Bottom Line

CDs have not reclaimed the physical-media crown, and vinyl is not collapsing. The latest complete RIAA figures still show records comfortably ahead in both units and revenue.

The surprise is that the supposedly obsolete compact disc is now growing much faster.

K-pop explains part of the 16% increase, but Luminate’s 6.7% growth figure without K-pop suggests something broader is happening. Listeners are rediscovering that CDs offer inexpensive physical ownership without vinyl’s escalating prices, storage demands and quality-control roulette.

Vinyl still owns the throne. The little silver disc has simply stopped behaving like it is waiting for the undertaker.

Which one do you prefer and why?

Related Reading: