from the one-flu-over-the-cuckoo’s-nest dept

Dr. Vinay Prasad is currently the FDA’s top vaccine regulator. He’s also one of many medical goons hand-picked by RFK Jr. to help lead his decidedly anti-vaxxer movement. In fact, the last time we discussed Prasad, it was over his selective censorship attempts at avoiding public criticism for his anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you show clips of Prasad spewing his anti-vaxxer views to critique them, he’ll have your YouTube channel axed. If you show those same clips to praise his nonsense, you get to continue on unmolested.

He’s an asshat, in other words. An anti-science, anti-medicine asshat. And he’s also someone who is unilaterally keeping us from making progress on vaccines, apparently out of pure joy in exercising such power.

Moderna is producing a new influenza vaccine, this one utilizing mRNA technology, a la the COVID vaccine. Moderna sent an application to the FDA for a review of the vaccine it has produced, as well as the data from the trials the company conducted to demonstrate its efficacy. We learned last week that the FDA flatly refused to review any of this data.

In a news release late Tuesday, Moderna said it was blindsided by the FDA’s refusal, which the FDA cited as being due to the design of the company’s Phase 3 trial for its mRNA flu vaccine, dubbed mRNA-1010. Specifically, the FDA’s rejection was over the comparator vaccine Moderna used.

In the trial, which enrolled nearly 41,000 participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Moderna compared the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1010 to licensed standard-dose influenza vaccines, including Fluarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The trial found that mRNA-1010 was superior to the comparators.

Advertisement

Moderna said the FDA reviewed and accepted its trial design on at least two occasions (in April 2024 and again in August 2025) before it applied for approval of mRNA-1010. It also noted that Fluarix has been used as a comparator vaccine in previous flu vaccine trials, which tested vaccines that went on to earn approval.

This looks for all the world like Moderna did what it was supposed to do in getting the proper sign-offs from the FDA to conduct its trials. Prasad himself sent the refusal notice to Moderna, however, and cited within it that the trials Moderna conducted, which were signed off on by the FDA, were not appropriate. The letter didn’t bother to indicate why.

But in a letter dated February 3, Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator under the Trump administration, informed Moderna that the agency does not consider the trial “adequate and well-controlled” because the comparator vaccine “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.”

In its news release, Moderna noted that neither the FDA’s regulation nor its guidance to industry makes any reference to a requirement of the “best-available standard of care” in comparators.

Everyone at Moderna was understandably confused. The company has already reached out asking to meet with the FDA, ostensibly to sit down in a conference room with them, look them in the eye, and ask “wut?”.

The answer is unlikely to be satisfying. And it should be quite alarming to the rest of us. That’s because the rejection of a review of all of this data reportedly came from Prasad and Prasad alone, over the objections of his own scientists at the FDA.

Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, single-handedly decided to refuse to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine, overruling agency scientists, according to reports from Stat News and The Wall Street Journal.

Stat was first to report, based on unnamed FDA sources, that a team of career scientists at the agency was ready to review the vaccine and that David Kaslow, a top career official who reviews vaccines, even wrote a memo objecting to Prasad’s rejection. The memo reportedly included a detailed explanation of why the review should proceed.

According to those same sources, Prasad’s reason for refusing to review Moderna’s vaccine makes little sense. The story goes like this. As Moderna was seeking guidance for its trials for the vaccine, it chose a currently licensed flu vaccine against which to compare its own vaccine. At one point, the FDA suggested a different comparative vaccine be used. Moderna declined that suggestion and moved forward with the comparative vaccine it originally chose. Despite that difference the FDA reviewed the company’s plans for its trial on several occasions and at no point suggested its choices were a show-stopper.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Prasad is claiming that the choice Moderna made for a comparative vaccine, for which the company received only mild feedback from the FDA, is why the FDA is refusing to review this mRNA flu vaccine entirely.

Because that reasoning is almost certainly bullshit. As evidence of that, these same sources from within the FDA offered up this:

This wasn’t enough for Prasad, who, according to the Journal’s sources, told FDA staff that he wants to send more such refusal letters that appear to blindside drug developers. The review staff apparently pushed back, noting that such moves break with the agency’s practices and could open it up to being sued. Prasad reportedly dismissed concern over possible litigation. Trump’s FDA Commissioner Marty Makary seemed similarly unconcerned, suggesting on Fox News that Moderna’s trial may be “unethical.”

The explanation here is remarkably simple. This current government is being run by anti-vaxxers. And these anti-vaxxers are particularly anti-vaxxer-y about mRNA vaccines. And so folks like Prasad are throwing up every roadblock they can dream up to make it as difficult as possible to get new vaccines utilizing new technology approved. Or, as in this case, even reviewed.

Now, if that reads like the opposite of scientific progress to you, give yourself a gold star, because you’re right. Thomas Jefferson once said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” when, hypocritically, discussing slavery in America. I think we should tremble for our country as well when I reflect that we are getting sicker as a nation, given that we have morons at the helm of the nation’s health.

Filed Under: fda, flu, flu vaccine, health & human services, mrna, rfk jr., science, vaccines, vinay prasad

Companies: moderna

A lot of hacks get inspired by science fiction. When that inspiration is taken from the boob tube or the silver screen, the visual design is largely taken care of by the prop department. If, on the other hand, one seeks inspiration from the written word– like [Math Campbell] did for his smart pocket watch inspired by The Diamond Age— the visuals are much more up to the individual hacker. Though no nanotechnology was involved in its creation, we think [Math] nailed the Victorian High-Tech vibe of [Neil Stephenson]’s cult classic.

The build itself is fairly simple: [Math] started with a Waveshare dev board that got him the 1.75″ round touch display, along with an ESP32-S3 and niceties such as a six-axis IMU, an RTC, microphone, speaker, and micro SD card reader. That’s quite the pocket watch! The current firmware, which is available on GitHub, focuses on the obvious use case of a very stylish watch, as well as weather and tidal display. Aside from the dev board, [Math] needed only to supply a battery and a case.

[Math] designed the case for the watch himself in Fusion360 before sending it off to be 3D printed in stainless steel. That might not be molecular-scale manufacturing like in the book, but it’s still amazing you can just do that. Ironically, [Math] is a silversmith and will be recreating the final version of the watch case in sterling silver by hand. We’d be tempted to include a door–making it a “hunter’s case” in pocket watch lingo–to protect that amoled display, but far be it for us to tell an artist how to do his work. If you’re not a silversmith, [Math] has stated his intent to add STLs to the GitHub repo, though they aren’t yet present at time of writing.

We’ve featured smart pocket watches before, some with more modern aesthetics. Of course a watch doesn’t have to be smart to grace these pages.

Thanks to [Math Campbell] for the tip! If you’ve got time on your hands after ticking done on a project, send us a tip and watch for it to appear here.

If you’ve ever dreamed of talking with your car, Apple may have good news for you. Within the latest CarPlay developer guide is support for “voice-based conversational apps,” a sign that Apple could be about to open the doors to AI chatbot apps like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude right on your dashboard.

The guidelines indicate that AI companies like Google or OpenAI will need to create an interface that shows the conversational AI is listening in CarPlay, and then “appropriately respond to questions or requests and perform actions.”

Advertisement

Support is expected to arrive in March with the release of iOS 26.4, which is currently in beta. Companies that want to participate will have to jump through all the usual Apple hoops to qualify for CarPlay.

An Apple representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

How will talking to AI while driving work?

Apple has limited what apps work with CarPlay, partially to help keep drivers focused and undistracted. Siri commands were enabled under certain circumstances, but that was all.

With iOS 26.4 and the new conversational AI support, drivers could potentially have more in-depth conversations, but with a few significant limitations. First, Apple won’t be enabling wake words, meaning drivers will have to use their dashboard controls to open the AI app before they start talking.

CarPlay apps must also be designed for “voice interaction in the driving environment,” and can’t show text or images in response to your questions, unlike your usual use of AI chatbots.

Also, Apple makes it clear that these apps won’t be able to control your vehicle, your iPhone or related devices. So you’re limited to the basic chatbot conversation, which could let you brainstorm ideas for dinner, vent about your work day or ponder the great questions of the universe. Just don’t ask for home security advice and never use them for therapy, medical diagnoses, financial advice, tax planning and more. 

And always double-check that and AI chatbot hasn’t hallucinated while giving you information it says is true.

[James]’ Mechanical Organ of Dutch origin has been around longer than he has, but thanks to being rebuilt over the years and lovingly cared for, it delivers its unique performances just as well as it did back in the day. Even better, we’re treated to a good look at how it works.

The organ produces music by playing notes on embedded instruments, which are themselves operated by air pressure, with note arrangements read off what amounts to a very long punch card. [James] gives a great tour of this fantastic machine, so check it out in the video embedded below along with a couple of its performances.

The machine is mobile and entirely self-contained. It would be wheeled out to a venue, where it would play music as long as one could keep cranking the main wheel and the perforated cardboard book containing the chosen musical arrangement hasn’t reached its end. As perforations in the card scroll by inside the machine, each hole triggers valves that operate pipes, percussion hits, and even operate animatronic figures.

The air pressure needed to do all this comes from a reservoir fed by two bellows operated by continuous rotation of a large wheel, a job that requires a fair bit of effort. Turning that crank would likely have been the responsibility of the lowest-ranking person within reach. Today, the preferred method is a belt drive and electric motor.

The perforated cardboard arrangements mean that the machine is just as programmable today as it ever was, and happily plays classics as easily as Lady Gaga, Daft Punk, and Queen. [James] has an enormous library of music, so take a moment to listen to it play “Night Fever” by the Bee Gees and Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky”.

One interesting tidbit [James] shares is that there is a bit of artistry and skill involved in arranging music for the machine. Some instruments play immediately when triggered (such as the pipes) while others trigger after a delay (like percussion), so one needs to take all this into account when punching the cardboard. There’s a bit more info on [James]’ website about his machine and its history.

In addition to being a fascinating piece of musical and mechanical history, it is another example of just how effective of a technology punched card was. Many of us might think of early computing or even music when we think of punched cards, but the original use was in running looms and knitting machines.

Thanks [Keith Olson] for the tip!

TERG scientists also developed a different 3D-implant innovation to heal spinal injuries last year.

Researchers from the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences have developed a new 3D implant solution that helps heal spinal cord injuries.

Their study, published in the journal Bioactive Materials, shows how a 3D implant designed to copy the structure and stiffness of the spinal cord – combined with tiny, growth-promoting particles engineered to carry RNA – can help regrow nerve cells.

The study was led by researchers at RCSI’s Tissue Engineering Research Group (TERG) and Amber, the Research Ireland Centre based in Trinity College Dublin.

It was supported by the Irish Rugby Football Union Charitable Trust and Research Ireland, with additional funding from the UK’s Anatomical Society and the Irish Health Research Board.

Spinal cord injuries can often result in permanent paralysis caused by damaged neurons in the central nervous system that have a very limited capacity to regrow. According to RCSI, while implants can provide physical support at the site of the injury, nerve cells generally face molecular barriers that prevent regrowth.

RCSI scientists are trying to overcome this with a multifunctional implant that supports regenerating tissue while also delivering RNA-based signals that encourage neurons to switch their growth mechanisms back on. These signals target and silence a gene called PTEN that suppresses neuron regrowth after injury.

“We’ve created an environment that both physically and biologically re-enhances the regenerative capacity of injured neurons, which is a key requirement for restoring function after spinal cord injury,” said Prof Fergal O’Brien, the deputy vice-chancellor for research and innovation at RCSI.

“In laboratory models of spinal cord injury, neurons exposed to the RNA-activated implant showed significantly enhanced growth,” he added. O’Brien is a professor of bioengineering and regenerative medicine, and the head of TERG.

Dr Tara McGuire, who carried out the research as a PhD student in TERG, added: “While this study focused on laboratory models, the next steps will to be to test the approach in vivo and explore how RNA-activated biomaterials could help bridge damaged spinal cord tissue and restore lost connections.”

TERG scientists came up with a different innovation to heal spinal injuries last year, integrating nanomaterials into a soft, gel-like structure to stimulate neuron and stem cell growth.

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.

Ford is overhauling how it designs electric vehicles, shrinking battery packs and dramatically reducing wiring in an effort to bring EV prices closer to those of traditional gasoline-powered cars. The strategy marks a major shift in how the automaker approaches electrification, focusing less on maximizing battery size and more on improving overall efficiency and cost structure.

A New EV Platform Focused on Efficiency

For years, automakers have chased longer driving range by installing larger batteries. But battery packs can account for up to 40% of an EV’s cost and a significant portion of its weight. Ford believes simply adding more battery capacity is not the answer to making electric vehicles affordable for mainstream buyers.

Instead, the company is developing a new Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) platform that prioritizes efficiency at every level. Engineers are cutting thousands of feet of wiring, reducing parts count, and simplifying electrical architecture. In some cases, Ford has reduced wiring length by roughly 4,000 feet, trimming weight and material costs in the process.

The company is also moving toward zonal electrical systems and 48-volt architectures, consolidating components and improving energy management. By improving aerodynamics and reducing overall vehicle weight, Ford says it can maintain competitive range even with smaller battery packs.

Ford’s move comes at a critical time

While EV adoption is growing, high upfront costs remain one of the biggest barriers to mass-market acceptance. Many consumers are hesitant to pay a premium over gasoline vehicles, especially when interest rates and economic uncertainty weigh on purchasing decisions.

By shrinking batteries and reducing manufacturing complexity, Ford aims to lower sticker prices without sacrificing performance or usability. The company has publicly discussed targeting a mid-size electric pickup starting around $30,000 – a price point that would put it in direct competition with traditional gas-powered trucks.

This strategy could help close the cost gap between EVs and internal combustion vehicles, accelerating adoption without relying heavily on government incentives. Smaller batteries also mean lighter vehicles, which can improve efficiency and handling while reducing strain on supply chains for critical battery materials.

For consumers, Ford’s approach could translate into more affordable electric vehicles that still deliver practical range and everyday usability. Instead of chasing 400-mile battery capacities that many drivers rarely need, Ford is focusing on optimizing efficiency so that smaller packs go further.

That means drivers could see EVs priced closer to comparable gas vehicles while still benefiting from lower fuel and maintenance costs over time. Reduced complexity may also improve long-term reliability and simplify repairs.

In short, the shift is about delivering value – not just range numbers

Ford plans to introduce its first vehicles built on the new UEV platform in 2027, beginning with a mid-size electric pickup. Additional models across different segments are expected to follow.

If successful, this engineering rethink could reshape how the industry approaches EV design. Rather than competing on ever-larger batteries, automakers may pivot toward smarter architecture, weight reduction, and system simplification as the path to affordability.

For Ford, the message is clear: the future of electric vehicles may not be bigger – it may be leaner, lighter, and significantly less expensive.

from the no-such-thing-as-a-free-surveillance-tech dept

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement “free” access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of “free” surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people’s movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods “free” surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren’t accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We’ve seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter’s $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

In May 2025, Denver’s city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston’s office allowed the cameras to keep running through a “task force” review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city “turn Flock cameras off now,” a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city’s surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city’s residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city’s surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for “homeland security” equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as “grant-ready” solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for “law enforcement surveillance equipment” and “video surveillance, warning, and access control” systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a “License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program” that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive “for free” through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city’s entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this “free” funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79–80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to “mature their capabilities,” with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city’s ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks “free” ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against “Free” Technology

The most important protection against “free” surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to “free” tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

“Free” surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of “free” surveillance.

Originally posted to EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: alpr, dhs, drones, facial recognition, grants, law enforcement, surveillance

Companies: flock, flock safety, lexipol, motorola

At first glance, the Google Pixel 10a looks almost identical to last year’s Pixel 9a.

It keeps the same familiar silhouette, the same 6.3-inch display size and the same Google Tensor generation powering everything under the hood.

So what’s actually changed?

Google hasn’t torn up the A-series blueprint. Instead, the Pixel 10a focuses on refinement — small but meaningful upgrades that improve day-to-day usability without dramatically altering the formula.

The most noticeable physical tweak is around the back. The Pixel 10a adopts a completely flat rear panel, with the camera bar sitting flush rather than protruding slightly. It’s a subtle adjustment, but it means the phone now lies flat on a table without wobbling, slides into pockets more easily and looks cleaner overall.

Advertisement

Up front, the 6.3-inch Actua display is now 11% brighter. Resolution and size remain unchanged, but the brightness bump should translate to better visibility outdoors and punchier HDR playback. It’s not headline-grabbing, but it’s one of the more practical upgrades.

Battery life figures are broadly similar, with Google quoting over 30 hours of standard use and up to 120 hours with Extreme Battery Saver enabled. Charging speeds, however, have been improved, now at 30W. It’s not transformative, but any reduction in time spent plugged into a wall is a positive at this price point.

Durability also gets a boost. The Pixel 10a now carries an IP68 rating for water and dust resistance, paired with upgraded Corning Gorilla Glass 7i and a refined aluminium frame. That’s a notable step forward and arguably one of the most tangible improvements this year, though it’s just playing catch-up to most of the £499/$499 competition.

Advertisement

Google has also leaned further into sustainability. The 10a features recycled cobalt for the first time in the A-series, alongside recycled copper, gold and tungsten, a 100% recycled aluminium frame and an 81% recycled plastic back. It doesn’t alter the in-hand feel, but it pushes the environmental credentials forward.

There are new colour options too, with Lavender, Berry, Fog and Obsidian replacing last year’s palette.

Advertisement

On the software side, Satellite SOS arrives on the A-series for the first time, allowing users to contact emergency services without Wi-Fi or mobile coverage. It’s a meaningful addition that elevates the phone’s safety credentials.

Camera hardware remains familiar, with a 48MP main sensor and a 13MP ultrawide. The upgrades come via software, including Auto Best Take, Camera Coach and expanded Add Me support. As ever, Google is relying on computational photography rather than new sensors.

Advertisement

The Pixel 10a runs on the Tensor G4, the same chipset as the Pixel 9a, enabling Gemini Live, Circle to Search, AI photo editing, Call Screen and Hold For Me. It’s capable, but not a generational leap for existing Pixel users.

Overall, this is a refinement update rather than a reinvention. A flatter design, brighter display, faster charging, tougher build, Satellite SOS and expanded AI tools form the core changes. Everything else remains reassuringly familiar.

For new buyers, it’s arguably the most complete A-series device yet. For Pixel 9a owners, the upgrades may feel incremental rather than essential. At £499/$499, though, Google is clearly betting that steady polish still wins in the mid-range market.

Advertisement

Advertisement

SQUIRREL_PLAYLIST_10208265