LiteSpeed Cache, an immensely popular WordPress plugin for site performance optimization, suffered from a vulnerability which allowed threat actors to gain admin status.

With such elevated privileges, they would be able to perform all sorts of malicious activities on the compromised websites.

Apple’s iPhone 16 lineup is here. Though the base model iPhone 16 has taken a lot of the spotlight this year with the redesigned camera layout and amazing colors, the iPhone 16 Pro is a bit more iterative in terms of upgrades.

I personally bought an iPhone 16 Pro to upgrade from my iPhone 15 Pro. To be honest, though, if the iPhone 16 had a 1TB storage option, I would have gone that route. Since it doesn’t, I had to go with the iPhone 16 Pro, as much as I wanted a pink phone. But storage wasn’t the only reason — I also wanted the improved telephoto camera that I missed out on last year.

So, was going to the iPhone 16 Pro from the iPhone 15 Pro worth it? Let’s find out.

iPhone 16 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro: camera specs

As you can see above, the cameras between the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro are similar but with a few key differences.

For one, the iPhone 16 Pro now has the 5x optical zoom that was previously only on the iPhone 15 Pro Max model last year, as Apple made the camera systems on both models equal this time.

Apple also improved the ultrawide camera on the iPhone 16 Pro, going to 48MP from the previous 12MP. This should mean better detail and resolution in your ultrawide shots, and macros can now be in full 48MP, too.

Though the main camera on both phones remains at 48MP, Apple rebranded the main camera on the iPhone 16 Pro to a “Fusion” camera rather than just “main” like it did before. Does this actually mean anything? We’ll see.

Since Apple made no improvements to the TrueDepth front camera (still 12MP and f/1.9 aperture on both), we’ll just be looking at the triple-lens camera system in this comparison. Ready? Let’s get started.

iPhone 16 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro: main camera

Let’s look at this image of a cute pumpkin carriage display at the Anaheim Majestic Garden Hotel. The most obvious difference between the two is the blue lights on the pumpkin carriage. With the iPhone 15 Pro image, the blue light bleeds into the orange of the pumpkin, making it look more blue than it actually is. The iPhone 16 Pro handles the light better, as the blue light doesn’t bleed out to the orange, and there’s more contrast.

The leaves at the bottom of the carriage and the green stem on top are also more vibrant in the iPhone 16 Pro, but the glittery leaf is more textured with the iPhone 15 Pro.

Here’s a cute little Halloween tree display at the hotel. Honestly, there isn’t a big difference between these two images. The iPhone 16 Pro may have captured a bit more of the tree detail in the shadows at the bottom of the tree (the silver specks) and have less bleeding for the lights, but the iPhone 15 Pro did a better job of making the colors at the top of the tree a tad more vibrant. Otherwise, they’re both pretty equal.

This is a fancy chef’s omakase plate I got for my wedding anniversary dinner at Hanagi Japanese Restaurant (highly recommend!) in Anaheim. Both images are very similar, but when you look closer, the iPhone 16 Pro is better. More of the nigiri sushi pieces are sharper and in focus, making it easier to see the texture. The color is also better with the iPhone 16 Pro, as evident with the tuna and salmon roe. But again, the differences are minimal unless you really scrutinize them.

This is a low-light shot featuring a serene little koi pond in the garden area of the Anaheim Majestic Garden Hotel. I took the photo around 8 p.m., and there were only a few of those lamps outside. Both images look good, but the iPhone 16 Pro is a bit more vivid with the color, especially the greenery in the background. Overall, they’re pretty equal.

Winner: iPhone 16 Pro (barely)

iPhone 16 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro: ultrawide camera

I used the ultrawide camera to capture the full spooky armor and dress display. Both photos look the same on the surface, aside from the slight difference in overall tone. The details are similar even when you zoom in to examine it closer. I was expecting more from the iPhone 16 Pro here, but that didn’t turn out to be the case.

This is a better case for the improvements to the ultrawide camera on the iPhone 16 Pro. I snapped this ultrawide shot of the koi pond at the hotel at night, and the iPhone 16 Pro version captured more light. The iPhone 16 Pro also handles the light better, as it doesn’t appear blown out like the iPhone 15 Pro image.

Here’s an ultrawide shot of Monstro on the Storybook Canals ride at Disneyland. Both iPhones handled the scene similarly, but the colors are a bit more vibrant in the iPhone 15 Pro image than the iPhone 16 Pro. It’s evident in the trees, the water, and Monstro himself. In terms of detail, both are about equal.

Now, let’s try some macro photos. Here’s a closeup of a flower’s pistil. The iPhone 16 Pro image is much clearer and brighter with the color. However, the iPhone 15 Pro version handled the contrast better, which I prefer a bit more. But as far as how everything is in focus, the iPhone 16 Pro takes the cake.

Let’s try another macro shot of a different flower. The difference between these two images is much more apparent. Once again, the iPhone 16 Pro version is crystal clear and in focus, while the iPhone 15 Pro image has a lot of distortion and blurriness. You can even see a bug on the bottom petal much more easily with the iPhone 16 Pro.

Winner: iPhone 16 Pro

iPhone 16 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro: telephoto camera

Here’s a 5x zoomed-in shot of some buildings I can see across the street from the park. Since the iPhone 15 Pro uses a digital crop for its 5x zoom, the loss of detail is pretty clear when you look closely at it. For example, the texture in the wall of the beige townhomes is barely visible, whereas you can clearly see it with the iPhone 16 Pro’s 5x zoom. Other details, like the tree, also appear soft in the iPhone 15 Pro, while they’re clear with the iPhone 16 Pro.

I snapped another quick 5x zoom shot of some palm trees in my neighborhood. Both images look similar, but if you look a little closer, you’ll be able to see the sharpness of the leaves in the iPhone 16 Pro version, whereas they appear softer in the other. It looks like the iPhone 15 Pro also made the sky appear a more vibrant blue, which you may or may not prefer.

A half-moon was still out this morning, so I decided to try to see how well the zoom on both iPhones would do with it. Of course, the 5x zoom doesn’t give you a ton of detail of the moon, but you can at least make out the moon’s surface as best you can on the iPhone 16 Pro. With the iPhone 15 Pro, it’s much more fuzzy and harder to make out the different surface shades.

This is an interesting one. I decided to try a 3x zoom image since that’s the maximum optical zoom range for the iPhone 15 Pro. Since the iPhone 16 Pro only has 2x or 5x optical zoom, but up to 25x digital zoom, it uses digital zoom for 3x. For the iPhone 15 Pro, it has 3x optical zoom but not 5x. So this time, the tables have turned — the iPhone 16 Pro’s digital 3x zoom is not great compared to the iPhone 15 Pro’s 3x optical zoom. The left side of the rose garden looks dull and lifeless on the iPhone 16 Pro but is vibrant and crisp on the iPhone 15 Pro.

Winner: iPhone 16 Pro

iPhone 16 Pro vs. iPhone 15 Pro: verdict

If you’re still using an iPhone 15 Pro, this isn’t a recommendation to replace it right now with an iPhone 16 Pro. While the cameras are an improvement over last year, it’s still a pretty iterative upgrade, and unless you really care about the tiny details, it’s probably not worth it (for most people).

However, if you really want the 5x optical zoom that was missing last year and you enjoy taking ultrawide and macro shots, then the iPhone 16 Pro is worth considering. But for the main camera, which is likely to be the one that most people use the most, there’s very little difference, and not enough to justify the money to upgrade.

So, what’s the conclusion? If the telephoto and ultrawide cameras are your top priority, there’s a case for upgrading. But if you can do without those upgrades, and the main camera is your main concern, you can safely sit this one out.

The past few years have been a bit of a struggle for Exynos chips. Low-yield issues with Samsung Foundry wafers have led to the loss of big customers. The demand for chip manufacturing at Samsung factories has been poor for some time now, with only Exynos SoCs and a few third-party contracts using them.

Poor demand prompts Samsung to shut down chip factories, including some Exynos makers

Many of Samsung Foundry’s semiconductor factories were still active but not actually producing products. So, according to South Korean media Chosung, the company has decided to suspend operations at 30% of its 4nm, 5nm, and 7nm chip fabs. This is not a permanent shutdown, but a temporary one. In fact, the equipment will continue to receive power, but in a low-consumption mode to save electricity-related costs.

According to the report, the percentage of “semi-off” fabs will increase to 50% by the end of this year. Among the mentioned wafers, only the 4nm one remains permanently active, manufacturing the Exynos 2400 and some Snapdragon S chips. However, third-party demand is so low that it is far from occupying the full wafer capacity.

Samsung still hopes to improve the performance of its 3nm wafers

Currently, Samsung Foundry is struggling with the low yield of its 3nm GAA wafers. The company even had to ditch the Exynos 2500 from the Galaxy S25 series. Reports claim that they are still working on trying to improve the performance of its 3nm wafers in order to implement the Exynos 2500 in the foldable Galaxy devices of 2025.

On the bright side, the situation looks better for Samsung’s 2nm process. The South Korean giant hopes to offer competitive factories that will attract the attention of big customers. Even Qualcomm has opened the door to working with Samsung again for flagship Snapdragon chips in the near future.

Things got complicated for Samsung Foundry in 2021

Samsung Foundry’s “nightmare” began in 2021 with the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1. Qualcomm had designed the SoC with high expectations, for which it even debuted a name change. However, Samsung Foundry 4nm wafers “ruined it,” delivering chips with high power consumption and poor thermal management. Low factory yield was also an issue back then, with the percentage of usable chips produced being far from ideal.

Qualcomm acted quickly to remedy things by moving chip production to TSMC for the second half of the year. The company used the same design but slightly increased the CPU clock speeds. The result was the Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1, one of the best chips in the company’s history. At the time, Samsung Foundry was widely blamed as the source of the problems with the original chip.

In fact, the Snapdragon 888, the predecessor of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, was already showing some signs that something was not quite right. While the chip did not exhibit the latter’s severe problems, it already presented worse thermal control and energy efficiency than usual. Nvidia, another big player in the tech industry, also switched from Samsung to TSMC. In this way, Samsung suddenly lost its main customers for the time.

If you’re excited, or even just a little curious, about the future of augmented reality, Meta’s Orion prototype makes the most compelling case yet for the technology.

For Meta, Orion is about more than finally making AR glasses a reality. It’s also the company’s best shot at becoming less dependent on Apple and Google’s app stores, and the rules that come with them. If Orion succeeds, then maybe we won’t need smartphones for much at all. Glasses, Zuckerberg , might eventually become “the main way we do computing.”

At the moment, it’s still way too early to know if Zuckerberg’s bet will actually pay off. Orion is, for now, still a prototype. Meta hasn’t said when it might become widely available or how much it might cost. That’s partly because the company, which has already poured tens of billions of dollars into AR and VR research, still needs to figure out how to make Orion significantly more affordable than the $10,000 it costs to make the current version. It also needs to refine Orion’s hardware and software. And, perhaps most importantly, the company will eventually need to persuade its vast user base that AI-infused, eye-tracking glasses offer a better way to navigate the world.

Still, Meta has been eager to show off Orion since at Connect. And, after recently getting a chance to try out Orion for myself, it’s easy to see why: Orion is the most impressive AR hardware I’ve seen.

Meta has clearly gone to great lengths to make its AR glasses look, well, normal. While Snap has been mocked for its oversized Spectacles, Orion’s shape and size is closer to a traditional pair of frames.

Even so, they’re still noticeably wide and chunky. The thick black frames, which house an array of cameras, sensors and custom silicon, may work on some face shapes, but I don’t think they are particularly flattering. And while they look less cartoonish than Snap’s AR Spectacles, I’m pretty sure I’d still get some funny looks if I walked around with them in public. At 98 grams, the glasses were noticeably bulkier than my typical prescription lenses, but never felt heavy.

In addition to the actual glasses, Orion relies on two other pieces of kit: a 182-gram “wireless compute puck, which needs to stay near the glasses, and an electromyography (EMG) wristband that allows you to control the AR interface with a series of hand gestures. The puck I saw was equipped with its own cameras and sensors, but Meta told me they’ve since simplified the remote control-shaped device so that it’s mainly used for connectivity and processing.

When I first saw the three-piece Orion setup at Connect, my first thought was that it was an interesting compromise in order to keep the glasses smaller. But after trying it all together, it really doesn’t feel like a compromise at all.

You control Orion’s interface through a combination of eye tracking and gestures. After a quick calibration the first time you put the glasses on, you can navigate the AR apps and menus by glancing around the interface and tapping your thumb and index finger together. Meta has been experimenting with wrist-based neural interfaces for years, and Orion’s EMG wristband is the result of that work. The band, which feels like little more than a fabric watch band, uses sensors to detect the electrical signals that occur with even subtle movements of your wrist and fingers. Meta then uses machine learning to decode those signals and send them to the glasses.

That may sound complicated, but I was surprised by how intuitive the navigation felt. The combination of quick gestures and eye tracking felt much more precise than hand tracking controls I’ve used in VR. And while Orion also has hand-tracking abilities, it feels much more natural to quickly tap your fingers together than to extend your hands out in front of your face.

What it’s like to use Orion

Meta walked me through a number of demos meant to show off Orion’s capabilities. I asked Meta AI to generate an image, and to come up with recipes based on a handful of ingredients on a shelf in front of me. The latter is a trick I’ve with the Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses, except with Orion, Meta AI was also able to project the recipe steps onto the wall in front of me.

I also answered a couple of video calls, including one from a surprisingly lifelike . I watched a YouTube video, scrolled Instagram Reels, and dictated a response to an incoming message. If you’ve used mixed reality headsets, much of this will sound familiar, and a lot of it wasn’t that different from what you can do in VR headsets.

The magic of AR, though, is that everything you see is overlaid onto the world around you and your surroundings are always fully visible. I particularly appreciated this when I got to the gaming portion of the walkthrough. I played a few rounds of a Meta-created game called Stargazer, where players control a retro-looking spacecraft by moving their head to avoid incoming obstacles while shooting enemies with finger tap gestures. Throughout that game, and a subsequent round of AR Pong, I was able to easily keep up a conversation with the people around me while I played. As someone who easily gets motion sick from VR gaming, I appreciated that I never felt disoriented or less aware of my surroundings.

Orion’s displays rely on silicon carbide lenses, micro-LED projectors and waveguides. The actual lenses are clear, though they can dim depending on your environment. One of the most impressive aspects is the 70-degree field of view. It was noticeably wider and more immersive than what I experienced with Snap’s AR Spectacles, which have a 46-degree field of view. At one point, I had three windows open in one multitasking view: Instagram Reels, a video call and a messaging inbox. And while I was definitely aware of the outer limits of the display, I could easily see all three windows without physically moving my head or adjusting my position. It’s still not the all-encompassing AR of sci-fi flicks, but it was wide enough I never struggled to keep the AR content in view.

What was slightly disappointing, though, was the resolution of Orion’s visuals. At 13 pixels per degree, the colors all seemed somewhat muted and projected text was noticeably fuzzy. None of it was difficult to make out, but it was much less vivid than what I saw on , which have a 37 pixels per degree resolution.

Meta’s VP of Wearable Devices, Ming Hua, told me that one of the company’s top priorities is to increase the brightness and resolution of Orion’s displays. She said that there’s already a version of the prototype with twice the pixel density, so there’s good reason to believe this will improve over time. She’s also optimistic that Meta will eventually be able to bring down the costs of its AR tech, eventually reducing it to something “similar to a high end phone.”

What does it mean?

Leaving my demo at Meta’s headquarters, I was reminded of the first time I tried out a prototype of the wireless VR headset that would eventually become known as Quest, back in 2016. Called at the time, it was immediately obvious, even to an infrequent VR user, that the wireless, room-tracking headset was the future of the company’s VR business. Now, it’s almost hard to believe there was a time when Meta’s headsets weren’t fully untethered.

Orion has the potential to be much bigger. Now, Meta isn’t just trying to create a more convenient form factor for mixed reality hobbyists and gamers. It’s offering a glimpse into how it views the future, and what our lives might look like when we’re no longer tethered to our phones.

For now, Orion is still just that: a glimpse. It’s far more complex than anything the company has attempted with VR. Meta still has a lot of work to do before that AR-enabled future can be a reality. But the prototype shows that much of that vision is closer than we think.