Claude Outraises the Pros: AI’s Alarming Edge in the Art of Asking for Money

Researchers handed Anthropic’s latest Claude model a simple assignment. Raise money for Save the Children. The results landed like a gut punch.

Claude didn’t just match seasoned fundraisers. It crushed them. Nearly three times as effective at getting people to part with cash. Average gifts ran 13 percent higher. All from scripted online chats with more than 1,000 participants.

The study, conducted by a Britain-based team and detailed in a preprint, tested real persuasion. Participants received a one-pound bonus for an online task. Fundraisers, both human and AI, had 15 to 20 minutes to convince them to donate some or all of it to the charity. Claude Opus 4.6 won on every metric by at least five percentage points.

But the humans weren’t amateurs. These were experienced professionals who had raised money for the same humanitarian organization in real campaigns. They knew the stories. They understood the emotional beats. None of it mattered.

Claude produced longer messages. It packed them with facts, references, and tailored appeals. Sometimes those references were fabricated. Persuasiveness, the researchers found, did not always track with accuracy. The AI simply refused to take no for an answer in ways humans hesitate to copy.

Digital Trends first highlighted the experiment’s uncomfortable takeaway. The chatbot persuaded more donors to give something. It coaxed them to give more. And it did so without the social friction that makes humans awkward about money asks.

Just one day earlier, The Washington Post reported similar findings. The AI models outperformed elite fundraisers and even debaters across the board. Claude stood out. Its success wasn’t about raw intelligence alone. The model excelled at sustained, adaptive conversation. It mirrored donor language. It countered objections with precision. It never sounded desperate.

And yet the advantage evaporated in one variant. When researchers imposed strict word limits, the gap between AI and humans narrowed or disappeared. Length mattered. So did the freedom to build a case gradually, layer by layer.

This isn’t an isolated curiosity. Separate tests show AI agents already operate in the real world with surprising competence. In an experiment by Sage Future, a nonprofit backed by Open Philanthropy, four AI models including versions of Claude and GPT received computers, internet access, and a group chat. Their goal: raise as much money as possible for charity.

They chose Helen Keller International on their own. They researched impact. They calculated that $3,500 in donations could save a life through vitamin A supplements. Within a week the agents had raised $257. Later iterations reportedly scaled that figure to $2,000 across multiple charities. The agents created social media accounts, designed graphics, coordinated strategies, and executed without constant human direction.

Those numbers remain small. The implications are not. Nonprofits already experiment with AI for grant writing and appeal drafting. Some report cutting drafting time by two-thirds. Others note that when donors discover AI helped craft the message, trust collapses. The tool boosts output. It can undermine authenticity.

Anthropic itself has leaned into the nonprofit space. The company offers discounts and tools for the sector. It announced plans to invest $150 million in a fellowship program placing early-career professionals at charities to integrate AI. The irony sits heavy. The same technology that outperforms human fundraisers now trains humans to work alongside it.

Fundraising has always mixed art and science. Stories move hearts. Data justifies budgets. Relationships seal checks. Claude bypasses the relational friction. It treats every conversation as an optimization problem. And it solves that problem better than people who have spent years honing their craft.

But here’s the rub. The study measured one-off digital exchanges. Real fundraising often builds over months or years. It involves phone calls, events, handwritten notes, shared history. Those elements still favor humans. For now.

The debate test offers another clue. Claude held an edge there too, at least until constraints kicked in. Persuasion, whether for donations or arguments, appears to reward persistence, volume of evidence, and unflagging focus. Qualities large language models possess in abundance.

Nonprofit leaders face hard choices. Deploy AI to multiply output and risk donor backlash if the involvement becomes known. Keep humans front and center and accept lower conversion rates. Or find hybrid approaches that hide the machinery while harvesting its advantages.

Some organizations already split the difference. They use AI to generate first drafts, personalize appeals at scale, or analyze donor data for timing. Humans edit, sign, and own the final message. The Washington Post piece suggests this tension will only sharpen. AI grows more persuasive. Public skepticism about synthetic communication grows in tandem.

Meanwhile Anthropic, the company behind Claude, has raised tens of billions at valuations approaching a trillion dollars. Its own success at attracting capital stands in contrast to the technology’s newfound talent for extracting it from ordinary people. The model that helps startups craft pitch decks now crafts charity appeals that outperform the pros.

Researchers cautioned against overreaction. The experiment didn’t test human-AI teams working together. It didn’t measure long-term donor relationships or repeat giving. Those caveats matter. Yet the core finding remains. On pure persuasion in a controlled digital environment, the machine won.

Fundraisers have adapted before. Direct mail gave way to email. Email surrendered ground to social media and peer-to-peer campaigns. Now comes the next shift. The ask itself may soon come from systems that never tire, never feel awkward, and never forget a donor’s previous objections.

What happens when every nonprofit, every political campaign, every sales team deploys similar technology? The arms race in persuasion has a new contender. And it doesn’t need coffee breaks.

The Save the Children study, the Sage Future agent trials, and related reporting paint a consistent picture. AI doesn’t merely assist with fundraising tasks. In specific contexts it already surpasses human specialists. The question isn’t whether this capability will spread. It’s how organizations, donors, and society will respond when the best fundraisers in the room have no pulse.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/dTeFaKU

Warsh Fooled Them All: How Trump’s Fed Pick Faces a Market That Already Moved On

Kevin Warsh stepped into the Federal Reserve chairmanship with a plan. Cut rates first. Then remake policy around a smaller balance sheet and clearer signals about what the central bank would and would not do. Markets cheered the appointment. Stocks jumped. President Trump joked that traders must like his choice. Yet three weeks later the bond market has turned. Investors dumped Treasuries. They piled into contracts betting on higher rates by December. Inflation readings climbed to the fastest pace in three years. And the new chairman finds himself squeezed between a president who demands lower borrowing costs and traders who see no room for them.

The original Yahoo Finance analysis captured the tension early. It warned that the market had already priced in a different story from the one Trump and his appointee hoped to tell. That story looks even sharper now. Warsh, a former Fed governor who served during the 2008 crisis, built a reputation as a hawk. He criticized past officials for missing inflation. He argued artificial intelligence would lift productivity and ease price pressures over time. Yet data arrived faster than theory.

Inflation roared back. Bond yields climbed. Futures markets shifted from expecting cuts to pricing in the chance of an increase before year end. The Fed is widely expected to leave its benchmark rate steady this week in the 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent range. Traders will parse every word from Warsh’s news conference. One misstep and credibility suffers. Fall short of sounding tough enough on prices and markets sell off. Appear too willing to please the White House and the Fed’s independence comes under fresh attack.

Difficult spot. That’s how James Clouse, a former top Fed staffer now at the Andersen Institute, described it to Bloomberg reporters. “It’s just a very difficult position for him all the way around,” Clouse said. The remark, carried in a Yahoo Finance report from June 15, sums up the bind. Trump wants easier money to ease the weight of federal debt and support asset prices. The bond market sees persistent price pressures and fiscal risks that argue for restraint.

And the numbers back the caution. April’s consumer price index hit 3.8 percent after the flare-up in tensions with Iran. By May and June the pace accelerated past 4 percent. Manufacturing surveys show trade uncertainty remains the top concern for more than three-quarters of executives, according to Deloitte data cited in recent economic briefs. Consumer confidence among non-college workers dropped to its lowest level since records began in 1976. Warehouse employment fell sharply. The top 10 percent of earners now drive nearly half of all consumer spending, leaving the rest of the economy feeling the pinch of higher costs and policy fog.

Warsh once outlined his vision in clear terms. “We can begin reform at the Fed with a rate cut, which is just the first step to regime change,” he told CNBC in July 2025. During his confirmation hearings he added that the Fed possesses both an interest-rate tool and a balance sheet tool. “My view is the interest rate tool gets in the cracks. It’s fairer,” he said. “The balance sheet tool disproportionately helps those with financial assets.” The comments, highlighted in a Motley Fool analysis published June 10, laid out an ambitious shift. Lower rates to support growth. Use quantitative tightening to offset any perception of favoritism toward asset owners. Remove heavy forward guidance so investors price risk properly again.

But Trump’s broader actions complicated the script. His renewed tariff push after the Supreme Court struck down earlier levies added fresh uncertainty. New proposed duties of at least 10 percent on goods from 60 trading partners sent ripples through supply chains. The conflict with Iran disrupted oil flows and pushed energy prices higher. These moves, detailed in Bloomberg coverage of the June 3 market open, forced markets to price in both higher costs and potential supply shocks. Warsh’s plan to justify rate cuts through productivity gains from AI suddenly looked less persuasive against actual inflation prints.

So the market moved first. It stopped believing that Warsh could deliver the easy-money outcome Trump sought. Yields rose. Equity valuations faced pressure from higher discount rates. Some analysts warned that any attempt to shrink the balance sheet while cutting rates could be read as political appeasement. Credibility would erode. Inflation expectations would unanchor. The very regime change Warsh sought could instead deliver higher volatility and weaker growth.

Recent commentary reinforces the point. A Fortune article from mid-May noted that traders no longer expect Warsh to follow through on rate reductions. Wall Street simply doesn’t believe he can do what Trump wants, the piece concluded after surveying positioning in rate futures. Yet the president continues to treat the stock market as his preferred scorecard. In a recent appearance he pointed to a 600-point gain on the day Warsh was sworn in and quipped that it proved “they must like you.” The clip spread quickly on Fox Business.

Even so, the S&P 500 has shown resilience. Earnings growth, prior tax relief and lingering effects of earlier rate cuts provided a floor. A Washington Post story published today observes that Trump now views market levels as a key guide for decisions, including his approach to the Iran situation. “The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is,” he said. Critics counter that equities reflect the fortunes of a narrow slice of the economy and offer a poor proxy for broader prosperity.

Warsh killed forward guidance in his first meeting. That quiet move, buried beneath headlines about steady rates, may prove the most lasting. Without explicit promises about future policy, assets must carry higher risk premiums. Leverage becomes more expensive. Strategies built on the assumption of perpetual central-bank support face reevaluation. One market observer on X noted that “without forward guidance, assets have risk premia.” Short. Direct. And accurate.

The new chairman has stayed largely silent since taking office. His first real test arrives this week. Policymakers show signs of dissent. Some lean toward tighter policy. Others worry that premature tightening could damage an expansion already strained by trade friction. Warsh must thread the needle. Sound independent enough to reassure the bond market. Avoid signaling weakness that invites more presidential pressure. Deliver a message that supports growth without feeding inflation.

History offers mixed lessons. Warsh served during the Great Recession and saw how aggressive easing can stabilize markets. He also watched the costs of prolonged accommodation. His current view blends both experiences. He wants normalization. He wants fairness. But the political and economic backdrop has narrowed his room to maneuver. Tariffs raise costs. Geopolitical shocks add volatility. Fiscal deficits loom larger. The bond market, for now, refuses to cooperate.

Investors will watch the press conference closely. Any hint that Warsh might bend to White House demands could spark a sell-off in stocks and a further spike in yields. Any sign he plans to fight inflation aggressively might ease bond-market fears but disappoint those hoping for immediate relief. The market already moved. It priced in skepticism. Warsh’s task is to prove that skepticism misplaced without losing the independence that gives the Fed its value.

That balance has rarely looked harder to strike. Yet the stakes extend beyond this week’s meeting. If Warsh restores credibility while adapting policy to new realities, he could reshape monetary practice for years. If political crosscurrents overwhelm him, the regime change he described may instead produce higher inflation, elevated yields and slower growth. Markets have delivered their opening verdict. The chairman now gets his turn to respond.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/0iLjM9u

Google’s Ask Ad Manager AI Agent Promises Faster Ad Ops Troubleshooting for Publishers

 

Google just dropped a new AI tool into its ad tech stack. Ask Ad Manager arrived today as a beta chatbot built on Gemini technology. The conversational agent aims to cut down the hours publishers lose chasing down why a campaign stalled or digging through reports.

Peentoo Patel, senior director of product management for Google Ad Manager, described the daily reality for ad ops teams. “Every day, someone’s troubleshooting something, or they’re asking for reports and analytics,” he told AdExchanger. The goal is simple. Reduce that back and forth.

The tool focuses on three immediate pain points. It troubleshoots campaigns that fail to deliver as expected. It answers complex questions about bidder performance and comparisons against industry benchmarks. And it points users straight to the right spot in the Google Ad Manager interface to act on its suggestions. No more hunting through menus.

But it stops short of pulling the trigger itself. Ask Ad Manager offers diagnoses and fixes. Humans still make the changes. That safety check matters. Patel made clear the chatbot does not make autonomous decisions. It requires a human in the loop.

Grounding keeps responses accurate. The system draws on the individual publisher’s first-party data plus generalized benchmarking information that Google Ad Manager has long provided. It pulls nothing from other publishers or external third-party sources. Publisher controls around monetization features stay respected too. If a setup limits the platform to reporting only, the agent stays within those bounds.

Examples show the shift in workflow. A line item underperforms. The ad ops manager pastes its number into the chat and asks for a diagnosis. The response might flag a creative that fails to render. Or it could surface a deeper inventory mismatch. Previously such investigations stretched across hours or days. Revenue leaked in the meantime. Now answers come in seconds.

Pricing questions get similar treatment. Ask how one bidder stacks up against others. Inquire whether raising a floor price would lift win rates. The agent pulls performance data, offers context against benchmarks, and then directs the user to the exact settings page for adjustments. That navigation feature fills a gap the platform never addressed directly before.

Reporting becomes conversational. Publishers can request custom performance views with a simple prompt instead of wrestling with spreadsheets and legacy query tools. The output arrives tailored. Complex data insights surface without manual chart building.

Availability started small. Google selected a mix of large and small publishers across desktop, mobile, and connected TV for the initial beta that began in mid-June. The company plans a gradual expansion over the coming months. Wide availability should arrive later this year. Google’s official announcement confirms the beta launch timing and notes additional features plus developer tools will follow throughout the year.

Usage stays free during testing. Google placed no limits on query volume for beta participants. That will likely change once the tool opens more broadly. Patel indicated usage-based considerations could appear.

Concerns hover around typical AI shortcomings. Hallucinations. Unhelpful answers. Patel acknowledged the beta phase remains too young for performance metrics. Testers have only run the system for a couple of weeks. Feedback loops are active. The company will watch error rates closely before broader release.

Yield sits at the center of Google’s expectations. Publishers constantly request better troubleshooting, easier navigation, and ultimately higher revenue. Ask Ad Manager attempts to deliver on all three. Patel framed the tool as an evolution alongside other agentic AI systems Google develops for both buying and selling ads. Future versions could support scheduled reporting automation and more sophisticated troubleshooting routines.

Existing reporting and diagnostic capabilities in Google Ad Manager remain untouched. No features face deprecation. The chatbot simply offers a faster interface on top of what already exists. Manual work still has its place. Yet the promise of slashing tedious tasks could free teams for higher-value yield optimization work.

Industry reaction will unfold over the next months as more publishers gain access. Early testers represent varied scales and inventory types. Their results will shape refinements. For now the launch marks another step in Google’s push to embed generative AI across its advertising products.

Ad ops professionals have watched similar tools emerge in other platforms. The difference here lies in deep integration with Google Ad Manager’s own data and controls. Grounding on first-party information reduces some risk compared to general-purpose chatbots. Still, human oversight stays essential.

Patel pointed to the persistent frustration. Ad ops teams waste time on repetitive questions and manual navigation. Ask Ad Manager targets exactly that friction. Whether it delivers measurable yield gains will determine its staying power.

The timing aligns with broader industry movement toward AI agents in programmatic advertising. Google positions this as one piece of a larger set of tools. Publishers who adopt early may gain an edge in efficiency. Others will watch the beta outcomes before committing workflow changes.

One thing feels certain. The days of endless email threads and spreadsheet gymnastics for basic diagnostics appear numbered. Conversational access to performance data, troubleshooting logic, and interface guidance has arrived in Google Ad Manager. How well it performs under real load remains the open question.

 

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/xFpCghb

AI Labs Raid Salesforce for Sales Chiefs as Enterprise Deals Eclipse Research Races

Two of the most valuable artificial intelligence companies are building their sales armies with veterans from one of the software industry’s most storied sales machines. OpenAI and Anthropic have quietly hired a string of senior Salesforce executives and go-to-market leaders. The moves mark a decisive turn in the talent contest. Research talent still matters. Yet the ability to close million-dollar contracts with cautious corporations now commands equal attention.

Denise Dresser left her role as CEO of Slack, the workplace messaging platform Salesforce acquired for $27.7 billion in 2020, to become OpenAI’s first chief revenue officer. She oversees global revenue strategy and enterprise customer success. The appointment, announced in December 2025 on OpenAI’s own site, brought a proven enterprise seller into a company racing to turn its technology into steady profit.

Jennifer Majlessi followed a similar path. She departed Salesforce to take the head of go-to-market role at OpenAI. “What makes this opportunity especially meaningful is my genuine belief in the product. I’ve seen how useful this technology can be in both work and life,” she posted on LinkedIn, as reported by CNBC in April 2026.

Anthropic moved even more aggressively on the Salesforce bench. The company hired four of the cloud giant’s most senior go-to-market leaders, according to a May 2026 analysis on RolePulse Substack. Those hires came through tight referral networks. They bypassed the hundreds of conventional applications that poured in.

Forty-three senior sales representatives in one enterprise-focused group chat applied to both OpenAI and Anthropic. None received a screening call. “It’s not you, it’s that the hiring process sucks,” one participant replied. The labs prefer proven leaders who already understand how to navigate complex procurement cycles inside large organizations. They want operators who can translate technical capability into boardroom language.

The shift carries weight. OpenAI expects enterprise customers to represent half its business by the end of 2026, Dresser told CNBC in a subsequent interview. That target demands more than clever models. It requires disciplined account management, compliance expertise, and the personal relationships that turn pilots into multiyear commitments.

Salesforce itself sits in an odd position. Its own CEO, Marc Benioff, has publicly courted AI researchers during past moments of turmoil at OpenAI. Yet the company now finds its sales and marketing talent flowing the opposite direction. At the same time, Salesforce deepened its dependence on the very labs raiding its ranks. The company plans to spend around $300 million on Anthropic tokens in 2026 while freezing software engineer hiring, a move tied to productivity gains from internal AI tools, according to a May 2026 report in People Matters.

But the poaching runs deeper than individual names. SignalFire’s 2025 State of Talent report, referenced across multiple outlets including a May 2026 San Francisco Business Times article, showed engineers at OpenAI were eight times more likely to leave for Anthropic than the reverse. DeepMind talent flowed toward Anthropic at nearly 11-to-1. The flow of commercial talent from traditional software firms now mirrors that intensity.

Colin Fleming offers another case study. After 13 years at Salesforce and a stint as chief marketing officer at ServiceNow, he joined OpenAI in a business-focused marketing leadership role. His arrival, noted in recent LinkedIn commentary and X discussions from May and June 2026, underscores the priority on brand positioning and demand generation for AI platforms inside risk-averse enterprises.

Forward-deployed engineers from Palantir have also landed at OpenAI. These specialists know how to embed advanced technology inside government and regulated-industry workflows. Their skills transfer directly to the compliance and security conversations that dominate large AI deals.

Compensation tells part of the story. Large packages, often including equity that could prove life-changing if the labs achieve sustained profitability, lure executives away from comfortable perches. Yet belief in the product matters too. Many cite the tangible productivity lifts they have witnessed inside their own organizations.

OpenAI currently lists hundreds of open roles. Roughly one-third focus on enterprise sales, support, and deployed engineering. Anthropic shows a similar proportion, according to observations shared by developer Simon Willison in recent discussions. The numbers reveal a strategic bet. The race to build smarter models continues. The race to sell them at scale has accelerated.

Traditional software vendors face a double bind. Their best commercial talent sees greater upside and mission alignment at the AI frontier. Meanwhile those same vendors become some of the largest customers of the AI companies, buying tokens and agents by the millions while slowing their own headcount growth.

The cultural contrast is stark. Salesforce built its reputation on relentless execution and a distinctive sales culture. OpenAI and Anthropic prize rapid iteration and technical depth. Integrating high-volume enterprise operators into research-heavy organizations will test both sides. Early evidence suggests the transplants are bringing structure without dulling the innovative edge.

Partnerships add another layer. Salesforce has integrated models from both OpenAI and Anthropic into its Agentforce platform. It uses Claude for coding assistance internally. The companies compete for talent and customers while remaining interdependent on technology. Such relationships are common in enterprise software. They feel newly tense when the talent drain flows in only one direction.

Industry observers watch the next wave. Will more chief revenue officers or chief marketing officers from established clouds follow Dresser and Fleming? Can the AI labs maintain their distinct cultures while absorbing dozens of quota-carrying veterans? The answers will shape how quickly generative AI moves from experimental spend to indispensable infrastructure inside the world’s largest companies.

One thing looks clear already. The talent war has moved beyond the laboratory. It now runs through the sales floor, the boardroom, and the procurement office. And the veterans who once sold CRM systems are now selling the future of work itself.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/gu8fSED

Chase Sapphire Preferred Adds Free Apple TV Subscription in Broad 2026 Refresh

Chase has refreshed its popular Sapphire Preferred card with a bundle of new benefits that take effect immediately for millions of existing holders. One addition stands out for Apple fans. Cardholders who activate by the end of 2026 receive a full year of Apple TV at no extra cost.

The Apple TV Perk and How It Works

This complimentary subscription carries a stated value of $156. Activation happens through the Benefits & Rewards section on Chase.com or the Chase mobile app. Users must link their Apple ID. The process is straightforward. Yet the fine print matters.

If a cardholder already pays for Apple TV directly through Apple, the Chase-provided year automatically takes over. The paid subscription pauses. It resumes afterward at the regular $12.99 monthly rate. Apple One subscribers who activate with the matching Apple Account tied to their billing receive something different. They get a $7.50 monthly discount on their Apple One plan for the next 12 months. MacRumors reported the details.

Chase’s official announcement confirms the same mechanics. “Cardmembers will receive a complimentary Apple TV subscription for one year when activated by December 31, 2026,” the release states. Terms apply. The benefit launched June 15 alongside the rest of the overhaul. Chase detailed the full update here.

Compare that to the Sapphire Reserve. That card, which carries a $795 annual fee, already includes both Apple TV and Apple Music subscriptions. The Preferred version stops short of matching the full streaming package. Still, for a $95 annual fee product, the addition gives cardholders tangible entertainment value without raising costs.

But the Apple TV perk forms only one piece of a larger shift. Chase doubled the annual Chase Travel hotel credit to $100 from $50. It added a $120 credit every four years for Global Entry, TSA PreCheck or NEXUS applications. New 3x points categories arrived for gas purchases, EV charging and direct bookings at vacation rental platforms including Airbnb, Vrbo and others.

Travel protections expanded too. Emergency evacuation and transportation coverage now applies, with limits up to $100,000 plus repatriation of remains. These changes arrive as the card sheds its 10% anniversary bonus on points earned. Points transfers to World of Hyatt also drop to a 4:3 ratio starting in October. CNBC Select outlined the positive changes and trade-offs.

Laura Picciano, General Manager of Chase Sapphire, described the intent. “Sapphire Preferred has always been a favorite for travelers and now we’ve made it even better, especially for those who want to earn valuable points quickly and prioritize simplicity and reliability.” Her words appear in the official release.

The card’s core earning structure remains attractive. Five points per dollar on travel booked through Chase Travel. Three points on dining, select streaming services and online groceries. Two points on other travel. One point everywhere else. The new categories extend that earning power into daily driving and short-term rental stays.

Existing cardholders gain these benefits automatically starting June 15. No new application required. New applicants can earn 100,000 bonus points after spending $5,000 in the first three months. That offer runs for a limited time.

Industry observers note the balance. The doubled hotel credit and new credits deliver clear dollar value. The Apple TV subscription adds appeal for households already inside Apple’s orbit. Yet the loss of the anniversary bonus stings heavier spenders. The Hyatt transfer ratio change hurts loyalists even more after Hyatt’s recent award chart adjustments.

One expert put it plainly. “For the typical traveler, the positives outweigh the negatives with this overhaul,” wrote Jason Stauffer in analysis for CNBC Select. He added that the Hyatt shift represents a significant hit for users who relied on that partner.

Still, the Sapphire Preferred retains its position as a versatile mid-tier travel card. Its $95 fee stays unchanged. Protections now rival or exceed many higher-fee products in key areas. And the Apple perk introduces a consumer-friendly tie to one of the largest entertainment brands.

Activation for the streaming benefit requires attention. Cardholders should log in soon if they want the full year. Those with Apple One subscriptions may see the discount appear on their next billing cycle after linking accounts. Practical tests shared across forums suggest the system works as described, though some users cancel and reactivate to trigger immediate effects.

Chase faces stiff competition. American Express, Capital One and others push their own travel cards with rich rewards and streaming credits. By weaving Apple TV into the Preferred lineup, Chase broadens its draw beyond pure travel enthusiasts. It speaks to families, cord-cutters and anyone who values easy entertainment savings.

The move also hints at deeper cooperation between Chase and Apple. Rumors have swirled for years about Chase potentially assuming more of Apple’s credit card business. While this perk doesn’t confirm any partnership expansion, it creates another point of contact between the two companies’ customer bases.

Analysts expect more such cross-industry perks. Banks hunt for ways to differentiate without simply raising fees or bonus thresholds. Streaming services look for distribution channels that reduce churn. Cardholders win in the middle. At least until the next round of adjustments.

For now, the updated Sapphire Preferred delivers more than it takes away for most users. The Apple TV subscription alone won’t drive applications. Combined with higher credits, fresh earning rates and stronger protections, the package strengthens an already strong contender. Cardholders should review their spending patterns. Then decide whether to activate the new benefits before the December 2026 cutoff.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/gJFy9te

UK Data Control Emerges as Decisive Edge for Tech and Defense Firms

British businesses face a stark choice. Keep sensitive information in foreign clouds and accept the risk of sudden access demands from overseas governments. Or take back control. And build systems that keep data firmly under UK jurisdiction.

That tension now shapes boardroom strategy across aerospace, life sciences, finance and advanced manufacturing. Recent legislation and market signals suggest the UK stands ready to turn regulatory compliance into a genuine business asset. The shift from data residency to full operational control marks a pivotal moment.

John Turnbull, managing director for Northern Europe at Dassault Systèmes, laid out the case clearly in a TechRadar analysis published today. He pointed to the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, now law, which sets security and resilience standards for data centers. The measure responds to worries over geopolitical friction and cyber threats. Global cloud providers, no matter how sophisticated, remain subject to laws such as the US CLOUD Act. This creates persistent uncertainty for any organization handling valuable intellectual property.

Numbers back the concern. A poll of 3,700 senior leaders found three-quarters worried about geopolitical risks tied to international cloud services. Cybercrime already costs the UK economy £27 billion annually, with £9.2 billion linked directly to intellectual property theft, according to the same piece. The threat, as noted by the Royal United Services Institute, “posed to UK businesses and economic and national security by IP theft and IP loss is huge, and the UK’s approach needs immediate attention.”

Enter the sovereign cloud model. Single-tenant environments guarantee data stays within UK borders and under UK-controlled access. No multi-tenancy surprises. No hidden back doors. Providers operate dedicated virtual private spaces that meet standards such as NIST 800-53. Companies gain cloud speed without sacrificing oversight.

Results show up in product development timelines. Defense programs like the Global Combat Air Programme and the Ministry of Defence’s Tempest fighter jet initiative depend on tight collaboration among multiple partners. Sharing designs across borders without leaks accelerates progress. One estimate cited in the TechRadar piece suggests 60% of organizations believe sovereignty makes data sharing with trusted partners easier. Another 55% see expanded collaboration opportunities.

Market forecasts reinforce the trend. BCG analysts project sovereign-cloud infrastructure-as-a-service spending to surge from $37 billion in 2023 to $169 billion by 2028. That works out to a 36% compound annual growth rate, well ahead of the 24% pace for ordinary cloud infrastructure. Demand comes from regulated sectors where trust determines who wins contracts.

But the conversation has moved beyond simple storage location. Recent reporting expands the definition. A March 2026 report from BT Group titled “The UK’s Digital Sovereignty Opportunity” estimates stronger controls could unlock £18 billion per year in additional economic value by giving firms confidence to deploy AI at scale. The analysis, prepared by Assembly Research, links localized compute capacity to faster adoption of high-value applications in healthcare, finance and critical infrastructure.

Similar themes surfaced at London Tech Week earlier this month. A June 12, 2026, summary from TLT Solicitors noted both UK and EU ambitions to expand domestic data center capacity despite planning hurdles. Participants emphasized that true control requires more than physical presence. It demands technical architecture that prevents vendor lock-in and supports interoperability. The TLT briefing highlighted how hybrid models let organizations match risk level to infrastructure choice.

TechUK offered a sharper framing in late March. Nick Roberts, director of sovereign cloud at Rackspace Technology, argued in a guest post that residency alone falls short. “Data residency remains important, but it is no longer enough,” he wrote. Modern sovereignty must cover decision rights over how systems operate, who can modify them, and how easily organizations can exit arrangements. This layered view protects public services and critical national infrastructure from service withdrawal, sanctions or sudden policy changes.

Parliament has taken notice. An Early Day Motion tabled January 20, 2026, and signed by 48 lawmakers, calls for a comprehensive UK digital sovereignty strategy. The text stresses reducing dependence on a handful of external suppliers. It points to existing policies on open standards and interoperability that could, if applied consistently, support domestic technology firms and keep more spending inside the British economy.

European moves add context. On June 3, 2026, the European Commission released its European Technological Sovereignty Package. The measures target semiconductors, artificial intelligence, cloud services and open-source technologies. Henna Virkkunen, executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, stated it was “time for Europe to be in control of its data, of its supply chains and of its future in a clean and sustainable way.” Coverage in Nature on June 5 noted parallel shifts in universities and research institutions choosing European tools over US providers.

Yet the UK charted its own path. The Data (Use and Access) Act avoids some of the stricter localization rules seen elsewhere while still raising the bar on resilience. Industry observers say this balanced approach could attract investment. A 2025 guide from Impossible Cloud, updated in early 2026, reported that data sovereignty had become a strategic priority for over 70% of UK organizations. The firm highlighted how alignment with new rules can cut migration risks by more than 90% and preserve legacy investments.

Concerns extend to artificial intelligence. Training models on foreign infrastructure risks exporting competitive knowledge, according to a LinkedIn analysis by James Smyth. He described digital sovereignty as “the ability to say ‘no’ to overreach.” Without domestic capacity for sensitive data, the UK could watch valuable insights flow elsewhere. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change made a parallel case in its July 2025 strategy paper on AI infrastructure. It warned the country risks becoming “the largest AI ecosystem in the world without its own AI infrastructure.”

Business Reporter put the commercial angle bluntly in an April 2026 feature. “Data sovereignty isn’t a culture war about borders,” the piece stated. “For UK firms selling into regulated markets, it’s rapidly becoming a way to win deals faster.” Companies that can demonstrate control over data gain an edge in procurement processes that prioritize security and compliance.

Implementation brings challenges. Building sufficient domestic compute remains expensive. Planning constraints slow data center construction. And not every workload needs the highest level of protection. Experts recommend a tiered model. Low-sensitivity applications can stay on standard public clouds. High-value or classified information moves to sovereign environments. This pragmatic mix preserves agility while addressing real risks.

Suppliers have responded. Microsoft, Amazon Web Services and Google now market localized sovereign cloud offerings that claim to meet country-specific rules. But questions linger about whether contracts can truly override foreign laws. A 2026 Kiteworks report on European data security found one in three respondents had experienced a sovereignty-related incident in the past year. Forty-four percent still cited provider trust as a major worry. Architecture, not paper assurances, appears to offer the firmer defense.

So where does this leave UK industry? Early evidence suggests organizations that invest in sovereign capabilities shorten time to market for complex, collaborative projects. They reduce exposure to service disruptions. And they position themselves as trusted partners in defense, energy and healthcare consortia. The economic upside could compound if the predicted AI adoption boost materializes.

Critics warn against overreach. Excessive focus on domestic suppliers might limit competition and slow innovation. TechUK’s Roberts cautioned that any sovereignty framework should avoid favoring only the largest providers, which could undermine smaller UK technology firms. Balance matters. Open standards, portability and hybrid architectures offer a middle way that strengthens resilience without isolating the economy.

The coming months will test these ideas. As the European sovereignty package rolls out and UK lawmakers debate the proposed strategy, companies must decide how deeply to commit. Those who treat data control as a board-level strategic priority rather than a compliance checkbox may find themselves several steps ahead. The rest risk watching competitors pull further into the lead.

One thing looks clear. The era when organizations could ignore jurisdiction questions has ended. Data now sits at the center of competitive battles. Control over that data increasingly decides who wins.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/rDoFwsI

A Teen’s Stand Against AI Collides With His Mother’s Daily Corporate Use

Crystal Hoshaw logs into her corporate role each morning and turns to artificial intelligence tools without a second thought. She asks them to summarize long reports, draft email responses and analyze data sets that once took hours. The gains show up in her productivity numbers. Yet across the dinner table sits her teenage son. He wants nothing to do with any of it.

Their clash captures a tension spreading through many American households. One generation sees efficiency. The other sees danger. And neither side gives ground easily.

Hoshaw described the situation in a recent Business Insider essay. Her son, still in early high school, views the technology as an existential threat to humanity, the environment and creativity itself. Those concerns strike her as remarkably mature for his age. They also make family conversations uncomfortable.

She tries to explain her position. AI serves as a tool, she tells him, not a replacement for thought. The problem lies in how people choose to apply it. He listens. Then he pushes back with examples of job losses, biased outputs and massive energy consumption required to train the models.

But the divide runs deeper than dinner debate. Recent news reveals why many teens adopt such firm opposition. In March, three Tennessee high school students filed suit against Elon Musk’s xAI. They claim the company’s Grok image generator helped create sexually explicit deepfakes based on their real photos. The images spread across social platforms and were traded for other illicit material. The teens, proceeding under pseudonyms, seek class-action status to represent what they say amounts to thousands of victims. The Washington Post first detailed the allegations.

Similar cases have piled up. A mother of one of Musk’s children sued xAI in January over deepfake images of herself, including alterations of a photo from when she was 14. The Associated Press reported on the filing. Other lawsuits target different AI companies for chatbots that allegedly encouraged self-harm in vulnerable teens. Parents have blamed platforms such as Character.AI and even OpenAI’s ChatGPT in separate tragedies.

These stories give teenage skepticism fresh fuel. Surveys show the worries extend beyond sensational headlines. A February Pew Research Center report found more than 60 percent of American teens have used chatbots like ChatGPT. Roughly three in ten use them daily. Some turn to the systems for entertainment or homework. Others seek casual conversation or emotional support. Sixteen percent reported the former. Twelve percent admitted the latter. The findings raised alarms among child psychologists, according to coverage in The Revolving Door Project.

Hoshaw’s son focuses on broader issues. Environmental cost ranks high on his list. Training a single large model can require electricity equivalent to hundreds of households for months. Water usage for cooling data centers adds another strain. He points to artists who lose income when generative systems trained on their work produce similar images in seconds. Creativity, in his view, suffers when machines remix existing material without true originality.

She counters with her own experience. In her corporate setting, AI handles rote tasks and frees her for strategic work that demands human judgment. A summary that once required 90 minutes now appears in under 10. She reviews every output, edits heavily and maintains final responsibility. The technology augments her skills rather than supplants them. She insists this distinction matters.

Yet she admits the talks at home have grown strained. Her son refuses to use AI for school assignments even when teachers permit it. He researches topics the old-fashioned way and writes every word himself. The stance impresses her on one level. On another it worries her. Future employers may expect familiarity with these systems. Complete rejection could limit his options.

And here lies the heart of their impasse. Hoshaw believes selective adoption brings clear advantages. Her son sees any adoption as surrender. He watches industry leaders race forward with minimal regard for consequences. He reads about unregulated image generators that produce harmful content. He hears predictions of widespread job displacement in fields from writing to coding to legal analysis.

Public opinion among parents has hardened. A 2025 poll by the Institute for Family Studies found 90 percent of voters want Congress to place child protection above AI industry growth. The same share believes companies hold a legal duty to place users’ best interests first. Despite that consensus, federal policy remains focused on speeding innovation to outpace China. A White House framework released in March offers vague language on safeguards while discouraging aggressive state-level lawsuits.

Hoshaw finds herself caught between these forces. She supports reasonable rules. She also appreciates the practical benefits she sees every workday. Her son, meanwhile, draws a harder line. For him the technology carries too many known risks and too many unknown ones. He cites the Tennessee case and others like it as proof that companies prioritize speed over safety.

Their back-and-forth continues. Some evenings they reach temporary common ground. She agrees certain uses cross ethical boundaries. He concedes that not every application leads to harm. Those moments don’t last. The next headline about misuse or the next work deadline that AI shortens restarts the cycle.

Industry insiders watch these family dynamics with interest. Companies pour resources into making tools more accessible and seemingly indispensable. Corporate adoption rates climb. Yet a generation entering the workforce expresses open distrust. That generational split could shape hiring, training programs and even product design in coming years.

Hoshaw keeps trying to bridge the gap. She shows her son examples of AI-assisted work where human oversight prevents errors. She discusses transparency in training data and the importance of crediting original creators. He absorbs the information. Then he returns to his core objection. The systems, in his estimation, concentrate power in too few hands and erode skills that define human capability.

Neither appears ready to convert the other. The conversations have become a regular feature of their home life. They reveal something larger about technology’s advance. Benefits arrive first for those already established in their careers. Doubts surface first among those just starting out. The gap between those perspectives may narrow with time. Or it may widen into something more permanent.

For now Hoshaw continues her daily routine. She opens the AI tools. She completes her tasks faster than before. And she prepares for another round of debate when she gets home. Her son waits with fresh arguments drawn from the latest developments. The exchange has no easy end in sight.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/saxERO2

Microsoft Explores Spinning Off Xbox Division as It Pushes Halo and Fallout Games

Microsoft has explored the possibility of spinning off its Xbox gaming division as an independent company while simultaneously advancing plans for new entries in major franchises including Halo and Fallout, according to a report from The Information. The discussions reflect the company’s ongoing efforts to reshape its gaming business amid shifting industry conditions and internal strategic reviews.

The idea of separating Xbox into its own publicly traded entity surfaced within Microsoft during internal evaluations of how best to manage its substantial investments in gaming. Executives examined various structural options that could unlock additional value for shareholders while allowing the gaming unit greater operational flexibility. Although no final decision has been made to pursue a spinoff, the mere consideration of such a move signals that Microsoft views its gaming operations as distinct enough from its core cloud and productivity businesses to warrant independent status. This approach would echo past corporate decisions where large technology firms separated hardware or entertainment divisions to focus on specialized growth opportunities.

Xbox has grown into a significant part of Microsoft’s overall portfolio since the company acquired Activision Blizzard for nearly $69 billion in 2023. That transaction added major properties including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Overwatch to Microsoft’s holdings. The combined gaming division now generates billions in annual revenue, yet it continues to face profitability challenges due to high development costs and competitive pressures from Sony, Nintendo, and emerging cloud gaming services. A standalone Xbox company could potentially attract dedicated investors who better understand the cyclical nature of game development and console hardware sales.

At the same time, Microsoft has moved forward with concrete plans to expand its most recognizable game franchises. The company intends to release several new Halo titles over the coming years, building on the foundation established by 343 Industries and earlier work from Bungie. These projects include both single-player campaigns and multiplayer experiences designed to keep the science-fiction shooter relevant in a market crowded with extraction shooters and battle royale formats. Halo remains one of the most valuable console exclusives in Microsoft’s portfolio, and the company aims to use it as a cornerstone for its broader gaming ambitions across consoles, personal computers, and mobile devices.

Fallout is also receiving renewed attention following the massive success of the recent Amazon Prime television series based on the post-apocalyptic role-playing games. Bethesda Game Studios, which Microsoft acquired as part of its 2021 purchase of ZeniMax Media, has multiple Fallout-related projects in development. These include potential new mainline entries as well as additional spin-off titles that could capitalize on heightened public interest generated by the streaming show. The television adaptation demonstrated that the Fallout universe possesses broad appeal beyond traditional gamers, creating opportunities for Microsoft to expand the brand into merchandise, additional media, and new interactive experiences.

The consideration of an Xbox spinoff comes as Microsoft continues to integrate its gaming teams more closely with other parts of the organization. The company has emphasized cross-platform play, subscription services through Xbox Game Pass, and cloud streaming capabilities powered by its Azure infrastructure. Game Pass has grown into a central element of Microsoft’s strategy, offering players access to a large catalog of titles for a monthly fee. This model has proven popular with consumers but has raised questions among analysts about its long-term impact on overall revenue and profitability. A separate Xbox entity might have more freedom to experiment with pricing, content delivery, and partnerships without needing to align every decision with Microsoft’s broader corporate priorities.

Industry observers have speculated that a spinoff could also facilitate future mergers or acquisitions that might face more regulatory scrutiny if pursued under the Microsoft umbrella. The Federal Trade Commission and other regulators closely examined the Activision Blizzard deal, raising concerns about market concentration and potential anticompetitive behavior. An independent Xbox company might encounter fewer obstacles when seeking to acquire additional studios or intellectual properties. However, such a separation would also mean losing direct access to Microsoft’s vast financial resources and technological capabilities, which have proven valuable in funding expensive game development and building cloud gaming infrastructure.

Microsoft’s gaming leadership has undergone significant changes in recent years. Phil Spencer continues to oversee the division as chief executive of Microsoft Gaming, reporting directly to CEO Satya Nadella. Under Spencer’s direction, the company has focused on creating a more cohesive approach across its various studios while preserving creative independence where possible. This balance has sometimes proven difficult, particularly after the integration of Bethesda and Activision Blizzard teams. Some developers have expressed concerns about increased bureaucracy and shifting strategic directives from corporate headquarters in Redmond.

The new Halo projects are expected to address criticisms leveled at recent entries in the series, which some fans felt strayed too far from the core formula that made the original games successful. Microsoft has reportedly encouraged 343 Industries to return to a more classic style of gameplay while incorporating modern features that appeal to contemporary audiences. This could include improved level design, more varied enemy encounters, and enhanced customization options. The company also plans to support the franchise with regular updates and community events designed to maintain engagement between major releases.

Fallout’s expansion plans benefit from the momentum created by the television series, which introduced the franchise to millions of new fans. Bethesda has already seen increased sales of its existing Fallout games following the show’s premiere, demonstrating the power of media adaptations to drive interest in source material. Future games could incorporate elements that resonated with television viewers while staying true to the distinctive humor and moral ambiguity that define the series. The open-world structure of recent Fallout titles provides ample opportunity for storytelling that aligns with both single-player and multiplayer formats.

Beyond these flagship franchises, Microsoft continues to invest in new intellectual properties and support smaller studios within its organization. The company has emphasized the importance of diversity across game genres and platforms, recognizing that reliance on a handful of major series carries inherent risks. This approach includes backing experimental projects that may not immediately generate massive revenue but could develop into significant franchises over time. Such investments reflect a long-term view of gaming as both an entertainment medium and a driver of technological innovation.

The potential spinoff discussions also highlight broader trends within the technology industry regarding corporate structure and focus. Many large firms have examined whether their various business units would perform better as independent companies or under more specialized management. For Microsoft, the question involves balancing its identity as a provider of enterprise software and cloud services with its role as a major player in consumer entertainment. Gaming represents both an opportunity for growth and a source of volatility that can affect overall financial results.

Analysts have offered mixed perspectives on the wisdom of separating Xbox. Some argue that the division would benefit from dedicated leadership and a clearer identity in capital markets. Others contend that integration with Microsoft’s other technologies provides competitive advantages that would be difficult to replicate as a standalone company. Cloud gaming, for instance, relies heavily on Azure infrastructure and engineering talent that might become more expensive or less accessible following a separation.

Microsoft has not publicly commented on the specific details reported by The Information, maintaining its customary discretion around strategic planning. The company typically addresses major organizational changes through official channels when decisions have been finalized rather than during exploratory phases. This approach allows executives to evaluate multiple scenarios without creating unnecessary uncertainty among employees and partners.

The development of new Halo and Fallout games represents a significant commitment of resources and creative talent. Both franchises carry substantial expectations from their established audiences, requiring careful management to avoid disappointing longtime fans while attracting new players. Microsoft’s experience with previous releases has taught it that successful game development requires patience, adequate funding, and willingness to incorporate feedback throughout the creation process. The company appears determined to apply these lessons to its upcoming projects.

As Microsoft weighs the future structure of its gaming business, the industry itself continues to undergo substantial changes. The rise of mobile gaming, increased competition in the console market, and growing importance of live-service models all influence strategic decisions. Companies must balance investment in traditional packaged games with development of ongoing experiences that generate recurring revenue. Microsoft’s approach seems to involve maintaining strong presence across multiple segments while exploring structural options that could optimize performance.

The consideration of spinning off Xbox does not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction with current performance. Rather, it reflects a willingness to examine all available options for maximizing value and operational effectiveness. Many successful corporations periodically review their organizational structure to ensure alignment with market conditions and internal capabilities. Microsoft’s exploration of this possibility demonstrates the seriousness with which it approaches its gaming investments and its desire to position the business for sustained success.

Future developments regarding both the potential spinoff and the new game projects will likely emerge gradually over the coming months and years. Microsoft typically reveals information about major titles through carefully orchestrated events and announcements designed to build anticipation. The company has scheduled various showcases and presentations where additional details about upcoming Halo and Fallout content may be shared. These events also serve as opportunities to demonstrate progress on integration efforts and subscription service growth.

For players and industry participants, the key question remains how these strategic considerations will translate into actual experiences. New Halo games promise to deliver the epic battles and memorable characters that have defined the series for more than two decades. Fallout projects offer the chance to explore richly imagined worlds filled with moral choices and unexpected humor. Whether pursued within Microsoft’s current structure or as part of a more independent entity, these franchises represent important components of the company’s vision for interactive entertainment.

The discussions around Xbox’s future structure highlight the complex nature of managing large-scale gaming operations in the modern era. Success requires balancing creative freedom with financial discipline, technical innovation with accessibility, and short-term results with long-term vision. Microsoft’s willingness to consider significant changes while continuing to invest in beloved properties suggests a thoughtful approach to these challenges. As the company moves forward with its plans, the outcomes will likely influence not only its own trajectory but also the broader direction of the gaming industry.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/sUPNEHl

Microsoft’s Nightmare Eclipse Strikes Again With Fresh BitLocker Bypass Claim

One researcher keeps delivering blows to Microsoft’s Windows security assumptions. And the latest strike landed just as the company pushed its June Patch Tuesday updates. The handle Nightmare Eclipse, also known as Chaotic Eclipse and MSNightmare, dropped GreatXML late on June 11. The tool claims to unlock BitLocker-protected drives through the Windows Recovery Environment.

But does it actually work? Independent tests so far say no. Short answer. The claim itself has sent security teams scrambling anyway. Because this isn’t the first time. It’s the latest in a string of public disclosures that started earlier this year and shows no signs of stopping.

The Register first reported the release. (The Register) According to the article the exploit requires copying an unattend.xml file and a Recovery directory to the root of the recovery partition. Then reboot into WinRE by holding Shift while clicking Restart. If done right a command shell with full access to the BitLocker volume appears. Or so the researcher says.

Nightmare Eclipse described the find as accidental. It took just four hours. The trigger condition ties to systems that have run a Microsoft Defender Offline scan at any point. That detail matters. Defender Offline scans serve as a common recommendation when malware infections appear. Organizations following best practices may have created the very condition the exploit needs.

Yet verification has proven tricky. Will Dormann a respected vulnerability researcher tested the PoC across multiple Windows 11 versions. He could not reproduce the claimed behavior. His results matter. They suggest the bypass may not deliver on its promise. At least not in the straightforward way advertised.

This marks the second BitLocker-related release from the same account. The first YellowKey appeared in May. It targeted the Windows Recovery Environment too. That one earned a CVE number CVE-2026-45585. Microsoft issued a mitigation and later included a fix in June updates. (The Hacker News) GreatXML followed hard on the heels of another disclosure called RoguePlanet a local privilege escalation affecting Microsoft Defender.

The pattern feels deliberate. Eight exploits in roughly ten weeks. Some received patches quickly. Others linger without CVEs or fixes. Barracuda’s analysis traced the campaign back to a researcher operating with a clear grudge against Microsoft. (Barracuda Blog) The account surfaced in March 2026. Since then it has targeted everything from BitLocker to Defender to core subsystems.

Frustration with silent patches and slow responses appears to drive the releases. In blog posts the researcher has questioned Microsoft’s practices directly. One post wondered aloud about silent fixes while hinting at more to come. Public PoCs land on GitHub under accounts that get renamed or moved when taken down. The latest lives at github.com/MSNightmare/GreatXML.

Security teams face a practical dilemma. Physical access remains a requirement for these BitLocker attacks. That limits the threat in many enterprise settings. Yet stolen laptops and devices left unattended represent real risks. Default TPM-only BitLocker configurations offer less protection than many assume once an attacker reaches the recovery environment.

Eclypsium broke down YellowKey in detail. The bypass abused built-in recovery behavior to grant an unlocked command shell. (Eclypsium) Systems without a pre-boot PIN proved especially vulnerable. Even with a PIN the researcher claimed a separate bypass existed but withheld the PoC to limit damage.

Ars Technica covered the initial YellowKey release. Multiple experts including Kevin Beaumont and Will Dormann confirmed it worked as advertised on default Windows 11 setups. (Ars Technica) The steps were simple. Place a custom folder on a USB drive. Boot into recovery. Watch the shell appear without needing the recovery key.

Help Net Security reported on Microsoft’s mitigation for the first flaw. The company advised disabling WinRE where possible or applying specific registry changes. (Help Net Security) Those steps reduce exposure but come with operational trade-offs. Recovery features exist for reasons after all.

GreatXML changes the conversation again. It doesn’t rely on the same WinRE quirks as YellowKey. Instead it manipulates XML files tied to past Defender Offline scans. The exact mechanism remains under scrutiny. If confirmed it would expand the attack surface to any machine that followed Microsoft’s malware remediation advice.

SOC Prime documented the original YellowKey disclosure and its ties to physical access scenarios. (SOC Prime) Their analysis highlighted how TPM-only setups leave data exposed once the recovery environment is reached. The new claim builds on that foundation but adds a novel trigger.

Microsoft has stayed largely silent on GreatXML so far. No official statement appeared in response to inquiries from The Register. No CVE assigned yet. No patch timeline shared. That silence echoes earlier stages of the campaign where disclosures forced reactive work.

The volume of releases creates its own pressure. Patch Tuesday in June addressed over 200 flaws including several from this researcher. Yet the newest drops arrived around the same time. The tempo challenges even a company of Microsoft’s size. Prioritizing which bug to fix first becomes harder when new ones appear weekly.

ThreatLocker examined the implications for organizations that rely on native Windows controls. Their tests showed application allowlisting can block some of the related exploits. (ThreatLocker) But BitLocker bypasses operate at a different layer. Once the volume unlocks data walks out the door regardless of later controls.

Recommendations have started to circulate. Require a pre-boot PIN on all protected devices. Disable WinRE in high-security environments. Monitor recovery partition changes. Use additional device encryption layers or hardware protections. None solve the root issue but they raise the bar.

Nightmare Eclipse shows no signs of slowing. Recent X posts track the rapid releases. One account noted four drops in recent weeks. Another highlighted the eight total tools since April. The researcher maintains blogs at deadeclipse666.blogspot.com where updates and hints appear.

Security professionals watch with a mix of concern and curiosity. The technical findings expose assumptions in Microsoft’s design. The delivery method raises questions about responsible disclosure. And the personal motivation adds an unpredictable human element to what should be a structured vulnerability management process.

YellowKey earned confirmation and a patch. GreatXML awaits similar scrutiny. Until more researchers reproduce the steps its impact stays uncertain. Dormann’s inability to trigger the shell suggests caution. Claims alone don’t rewrite security guidance. But they do force reexamination of long-held protections.

BitLocker was never meant to stop every determined physical attacker. It raises the cost and complexity. These exploits chip away at that margin. Each new technique makes the feature feel less like a guarantee and more like one control among many. Organizations that treat it as the final barrier may need to adjust their thinking.

The campaign continues. More releases seem likely before summer ends. Microsoft will patch what it can. Researchers will test the claims. Defenders will update playbooks. And the cycle repeats. This latest chapter in the Nightmare Eclipse saga underscores a simple truth. No encryption solution survives contact with a motivated finder of edge cases. Especially when that finder decides to share the results publicly.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/6J0k5ZM

Denmark Raises Key Rate to 3.60% to Fight Inflation, Peg Krone to Euro

Denmark’s central bank raised its key policy rate by 25 basis points on Thursday, bringing the deposit rate to 3.60 percent in a move that aligns with broader efforts across Europe to manage persistent inflation pressures. The decision by Danmarks Nationalbank follows similar actions from the European Central Bank and reflects the bank’s commitment to maintaining the Danish krone’s peg to the euro while addressing domestic price increases that have remained above target levels for an extended period.

The rate hike comes at a time when many advanced economies continue to grapple with the lingering effects of post-pandemic supply disruptions and energy market volatility. According to the report from Investing.com, Danish officials cited ongoing inflationary concerns as the primary driver behind the adjustment. This marks the latest in a series of incremental increases that have seen the bank’s key rate climb steadily from negative territory over the past two years. The move signals that policymakers believe monetary conditions still require tightening to prevent price pressures from becoming embedded in household and business expectations.

Denmark’s economy has shown remarkable resilience despite global headwinds. Growth has held up better than many forecasters anticipated, supported by strong performance in the pharmaceutical and shipping sectors. Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of popular weight-loss drugs, has driven substantial export gains and contributed to higher tax revenues that have helped stabilize public finances. Yet this success has also created domestic imbalances, with labor markets operating at near-full capacity and wage growth accelerating in response to tight conditions. These factors have kept core inflation elevated, prompting the central bank to act decisively rather than risk a prolonged period of above-target price increases.

The currency peg to the euro remains the cornerstone of Danish monetary policy. By maintaining the krone within a narrow band against the single currency, Denmark effectively imports much of its monetary stance from the European Central Bank. When the ECB raises rates, Danmarks Nationalbank typically follows suit to prevent capital outflows that could pressure the exchange rate. This mechanical link explains why Thursday’s decision mirrored recent ECB action, though Danish officials retain some discretion to adjust the spread between their rates and those in the eurozone. The current spread stands at a level that supports the peg while allowing for targeted responses to local economic conditions.

Economists generally view the rate increase as necessary but acknowledge potential side effects. Higher borrowing costs will likely cool activity in the housing market, where prices have already softened from pandemic-era peaks. Mortgage rates in Denmark, which often feature adjustable terms, will rise in response, affecting homeowners with variable-rate loans. Consumer spending may moderate as debt servicing costs increase, particularly for middle-income households carrying significant mortgage debt. Business investment could also face headwinds, especially in interest-rate-sensitive sectors such as construction and retail.

Despite these risks, the central bank appears confident that the Danish economy can absorb the tightening without slipping into recession. Unemployment remains low by historical standards, and fiscal policy provides a buffer through automatic stabilizers and targeted support measures. The government has implemented energy subsidies and tax relief to shield households from the worst effects of inflation, creating space for monetary policy to focus exclusively on price stability. This coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities represents a pragmatic approach that many other European countries have struggled to achieve.

Looking across the Nordic region, Denmark’s policy move fits within a broader pattern. Sweden’s Riksbank and Norway’s Norges Bank have pursued similar tightening cycles, though each central bank faces unique domestic circumstances. Norway benefits from oil revenues that cushion economic shocks, while Sweden contends with a more pronounced housing correction. Denmark occupies a middle ground, with its pegged currency removing exchange rate volatility but limiting independent monetary experimentation. The shared challenges of high energy prices and supply chain normalization have produced remarkably synchronized policy responses across Scandinavia.

Inflation dynamics in Denmark show mixed signals. Headline consumer price inflation has declined from its 2022 peak, largely due to falling energy costs after last year’s extreme volatility. However, underlying measures that strip out volatile food and energy components have proven stickier. Services inflation, in particular, continues to rise as businesses pass on higher wage costs. This pattern mirrors developments in the eurozone and the United States, where services-led inflation has complicated the task of returning to target levels. The central bank’s latest forecasts suggest that inflation will approach 2 percent by late 2025, but achieving this path depends on wage moderation and stable global conditions.

The labor market holds the key to future inflation trends. With vacancy rates still elevated and worker shortages reported across multiple industries, employers have offered substantial pay increases to attract and retain staff. Collective bargaining agreements reached earlier this year included wage hikes that exceed productivity growth, potentially locking in higher cost structures for businesses. The central bank has repeatedly warned that such developments could trigger a wage-price spiral if not contained through tighter financial conditions. By raising rates, policymakers aim to reduce demand enough to ease labor market pressures without triggering widespread layoffs.

Financial markets reacted with measured calm to the announcement. The Danish krone strengthened slightly against the euro, remaining comfortably within its target band. Bond yields rose in line with the policy adjustment, though the movement was modest given that the hike had been widely anticipated. Equity markets showed little immediate reaction, with investors focusing more on corporate earnings reports than on incremental monetary policy changes. This muted response suggests that participants had already priced in the expected tightening, reflecting the high degree of predictability in Danish central banking due to the euro peg.

International observers have praised Denmark’s consistent approach to monetary policy. The country’s long history of maintaining the currency peg has earned credibility with investors and trading partners. Unlike some nations that have experimented with unconventional policies during periods of low inflation, Denmark has generally avoided negative interest rates for extended periods, preferring to keep its policy framework aligned with European norms. This steadiness has served the economy well, contributing to low borrowing costs over time and supporting steady growth in trade and investment.

Challenges remain on the horizon. Global growth forecasts have been revised downward amid concerns about China’s property sector and geopolitical tensions that could disrupt energy supplies. A sharper-than-expected slowdown in major export markets would test Denmark’s resilience. Additionally, the transition toward greener energy sources requires substantial investment that could strain public and private balance sheets. The central bank has acknowledged these risks in its communications, emphasizing the need for structural reforms to complement monetary measures.

The housing market deserves particular attention. Denmark operates one of the world’s most developed mortgage systems, featuring long-term fixed-rate loans alongside variable-rate products. While this flexibility has benefits, it also transmits monetary policy changes quickly to households. Recent stress tests by financial authorities have confirmed that most borrowers can handle higher rates, but vulnerable segments exist, particularly among younger buyers who entered the market during the low-rate period. Regulators continue to monitor debt levels and have implemented macroprudential tools to limit excessive leverage in the property sector.

Looking ahead, market participants will watch closely for signals about the future path of rates. The central bank’s next meeting will provide updated economic projections and possibly more detailed guidance on when tightening might pause. Most analysts expect at least one additional hike before the cycle peaks, though the exact timing depends on incoming data on wages, consumption, and inflation. The bank’s forward-looking statements have become increasingly important as investors seek to understand not just the current decision but the likely endpoint for policy rates.

Denmark’s experience offers lessons for other small open economies. The interplay between domestic conditions and external monetary anchors creates both constraints and opportunities. By accepting the limitations of the currency peg, Danish authorities have gained stability and credibility that larger economies sometimes struggle to achieve. This framework has helped the country weather multiple global crises with relatively modest disruption. As Europe confronts the challenge of bringing inflation under control without derailing recovery, Denmark’s measured approach provides a useful reference point.

The latest rate decision reinforces the central bank’s determination to fulfill its price stability mandate. While the increase of 25 basis points may appear modest, it forms part of a cumulative adjustment that has transformed the monetary environment from one of extreme accommodation to one of restrictive policy. The effects of these changes will unfold gradually over the coming quarters as higher rates influence borrowing, spending, and investment decisions throughout the economy. Businesses and households will need time to adjust their plans accordingly, making communication and transparency from the central bank essential during this transition period.

As winter approaches and energy markets remain sensitive to international developments, Danish policymakers face a delicate balancing act. They must continue fighting inflation while remaining attentive to signs of economic weakness. The latest rate hike suggests that the balance currently tilts toward tighter policy, but this stance could shift if growth slows more rapidly than anticipated. The coming months will test whether the strategy of gradual tightening can successfully restore price stability without causing unnecessary damage to employment and output. Denmark’s track record of pragmatic policymaking offers grounds for cautious optimism that these objectives can be achieved.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/Biq9Mlu

How AI Facial Recognition Put an Innocent Grandmother Behind Bars for Months

Angela Lipps spent more than five months in jail. She had never set foot in North Dakota. Yet police there pinned a bank fraud scheme on her. The evidence? A facial recognition match from grainy surveillance video.

The case, first reported in detail by CNN, unfolded in July 2025. Fargo authorities investigated withdrawals made with a fake U.S. Army military ID. Someone had drained thousands of dollars. Video showed a woman. Officers ran the footage through an AI tool. It pointed to Lipps, a 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother.

They obtained a warrant. U.S. Marshals arrested her in Tennessee. She was shipped across the country. Held first in North Dakota, then back in Tennessee. All told, more than five months. Her attorney, Eric Rice, said the AI match appeared to be the primary evidence. “From what I can tell so far, her face was selected by an AI program,” Rice told local reporters.

But the match was wrong. Lipps had never visited the state. She had alibis. No fingerprints. No DNA. No witnesses tying her to the scene. Still, she sat in custody. Charges were eventually dropped. She went home. Yet the damage was done. Lost wages. Family upheaval. The stigma of an arrest that never should have happened.

This wasn’t an isolated mistake. A recent ACLU report documented more than a dozen such cases across the United States. One client spent six months locked up. Others lost jobs, homes, custody of children. The pattern is clear. Police treat these algorithmic hits as probable cause. They skip traditional police work. The result is ruined lives.

Robert Williams knows this pain firsthand. In 2020 Detroit police arrested him for stealing watches. Facial recognition from a fuzzy image matched his driver’s license. He spent 18 hours in jail. His young daughters watched officers cuff him in front of their home. Later, the department admitted the error. Williams became the first documented American wrongfully arrested due to the technology. He settled with the city. But the trauma lingered.

His story, covered extensively by The Guardian, exposed systemic problems. The software struggled with darker skin tones. It performed worse on women. Low-quality video made errors more likely. Departments kept using it anyway. Sometimes without telling judges how the suspect was identified.

Fast forward to 2026. The errors continue. In Florida, Robert Dillon was arrested at his Fort Myers home. He lived more than 300 miles from Jacksonville Beach, where the alleged crime occurred. Police used a system called FACES. It produced a 93% match. They placed his photo in a lineup. A witness picked him. Charges involved luring a child. Dillon had no connection. The case collapsed. Now he is suing the departments involved, according to recent reports on X and local coverage aggregated by The Guardian on June 10, 2026.

Another Florida man, Beau Burgess, faced similar trouble in Orlando. Officers relied on an old mugshot and the same FACES program. A hotel employee identified him from a photo array. Police initially denied using facial recognition when asked for body camera footage. An internal review later confirmed it. The state attorney dropped the charges. Yet Burgess had already endured the ordeal.

In New York, Trevis Williams was arrested by NYPD in 2025. Critics immediately pointed to the department’s heavy reliance on the technology. The man did not match the victim’s description. Still, the algorithm prevailed. The case was dismissed. Civil rights groups demanded an investigation. They argued the department had turned a flawed tool into a shortcut that bypassed real evidence.

These incidents share common threads. The original Futurism article that highlighted early cases noted how departments often withheld details about the AI match from defense attorneys. Judges signed warrants based on affidavits that simply said “investigation revealed” the suspect. No mention of the silicon intermediary. That opacity makes accountability difficult.

Accuracy rates vary. Vendors claim high numbers in controlled tests. Real-world conditions differ. Poor lighting. Angles. Aging faces. Facial hair. Makeup. The systems falter. Studies have shown error rates as high as 30% or more for certain demographic groups. Yet law enforcement agencies expanded use. Clearview AI, the tool reportedly involved in Lipps’ case, scraped billions of images from the internet. Privacy advocates cried foul. Courts in some states restricted it. Police kept turning to it.

And the human factor compounds the problem. Officers receive alerts. They build cases around them. Confirmation bias sets in. Once a name emerges from the machine, investigators seek evidence to support it rather than test the hypothesis. Traditional leads get deprioritized. Alibis are discounted. The algorithm, presented as objective, gains undue authority.

Lipps’ attorney put it plainly. The AI served as a shortcut. Basic investigation fell by the wayside. She was transported halfway across the country to face charges with no basis. Her GoFundMe, referenced in coverage by CNN, detailed the financial and emotional toll. A grandmother. A citizen with no criminal history. Jailed for half a year.

Reforms have been slow. Some cities banned the technology outright. Others imposed strict rules. Require human review. Mandate disclosure in warrants. Test systems for bias. Audit past cases. Detroit agreed to review every facial recognition warrant since 2017 after Williams’ settlement. That audit could reveal dozens more errors. Similar calls echo in Fargo, Jacksonville, New York.

But adoption continues. Proponents argue the tools accelerate investigations. They help identify suspects in time-sensitive cases. Child abductions. Violent crimes. In those scenarios, speed matters. Yet the Lipps case involved financial fraud. No urgency justified months of detention. No violence. Just a digital fingerprint that didn’t belong.

So what now? Legislatures debate bills requiring warrants for facial recognition searches. Some states demand probable cause independent of the match. Others push for transparency reports on error rates and demographic impacts. The federal government has issued guidance but stopped short of nationwide rules.

Meanwhile, companies improve the software. They train on larger, more diverse datasets. They add confidence thresholds. Yet no system reaches perfection. The question remains whether any error rate justifies depriving someone of liberty without corroboration.

Lipps is free. She demands justice. Others like Dillon press lawsuits to force change. The ACLU tracks the growing tally. More than a dozen documented. Likely many more unreported. Each one chips away at public trust. Each one shows how quickly a false positive can upend a life.

The technology isn’t going away. Police will keep using it. The challenge is to use it wisely. As one investigative lead among many. Never as the sole basis for arrest. Never without rigorous verification. Never in secret. Because when the machine errs, real people pay. Sometimes with their freedom. Sometimes with years they cannot recover.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/crLQzXb

Apple Drops watchOS 11 Support for Series 4, 5, 6 & First-Gen SE

Apple has officially confirmed the list of Apple Watch models that will lose compatibility with the upcoming watchOS 11 update, a decision that affects owners of several older devices. According to a report published by TechRepublic, the company plans to drop support for the Apple Watch Series 6, the first-generation Apple Watch SE, and the Apple Watch Series 4 and 5 when watchOS 11 arrives later this year. This move marks another step in Apple’s regular cycle of phasing out older hardware to focus development resources on more recent models capable of handling advanced features.

The announcement comes as developers gain access to the first beta versions of watchOS 11, allowing them to test new functions on supported devices. For users still running watchOS 10 on older watches, the news means their devices will remain functional but will not receive the latest software enhancements, security patches, or performance improvements that come with the new operating system. Apple typically supports its smartwatches for roughly five to six years before dropping them from the newest software releases, a pattern that aligns with the age of the affected models.

Watch owners should understand exactly what this change means in practical terms. The Apple Watch Series 4, released in 2018, introduced larger displays and improved heart monitoring capabilities that were groundbreaking at the time. The Series 5 followed in 2019 with an always-on Retina display, while the Series 6 arrived in 2020 bringing blood oxygen sensing and a faster processor. The first-generation Apple Watch SE, launched in 2020 as a more affordable option, shared much of its internal hardware with the Series 6 but omitted some premium sensors. All these models have delivered reliable service for years, yet they lack the newer S9 or S10 chips found in current watches that power features like on-device Siri processing and double-tap gestures.

The decision to exclude these models from watchOS 11 allows Apple to implement features that require more computational power or specific hardware components. New capabilities expected in watchOS 11 include enhanced health metrics, improved workout algorithms, better integration with iOS 18, and expanded customization options for watch faces. Some of these functions depend on machine learning models that run more efficiently on newer silicon, making them impractical to backport to older processors without compromising performance or battery life.

Users with affected watches will still receive security updates for watchOS 10 for some time, ensuring their devices remain protected against known vulnerabilities. However, they will miss out on the annual feature refreshes that have become a highlight of the Apple Watch experience. Many owners of older models report that their watches continue to perform basic functions like notifications, fitness tracking, and heart rate monitoring without issues. The primary limitation comes from the absence of new software capabilities that often drive user engagement and perceived value.

This support cutoff follows a similar pattern established with previous watchOS releases. When watchOS 10 launched, Apple dropped the original Apple Watch Series 3, which had already received several years of updates. The Series 4 and 5 were always expected to follow a comparable timeline, though some enthusiasts hoped the SE model might receive extended support due to its more recent release date. The inclusion of the first-generation SE in the unsupported list suggests Apple is drawing a firm line based on processor architecture rather than release year alone.

For those considering an upgrade, the timing presents several options. The Apple Watch Series 9 and the newer Series 10 offer full compatibility with watchOS 11 along with substantial improvements in display technology, health sensors, and overall speed. The second-generation Apple Watch SE also supports the new operating system, providing a more budget-friendly entry point for users who want access to future updates without paying for the latest premium features. Apple often provides trade-in values for older watches that can offset the cost of a new device, making the transition more affordable than it might initially appear.

The health and fitness capabilities of the Apple Watch have grown substantially since the Series 4 debuted. Modern models can detect irregular heart rhythms, measure blood oxygen levels, track sleep stages, and even identify potential falls or crashes. While older watches retain many of these core functions, they cannot take advantage of refinements and entirely new metrics that rely on updated sensors and processing capabilities. For athletes and health-conscious users, these differences may justify upgrading to maintain access to the most accurate and comprehensive data.

Battery performance represents another consideration for owners of aging Apple Watches. Over time, rechargeable batteries lose capacity, and older models may struggle to last through an entire day with power-hungry features enabled. Newer watches benefit from both improved battery chemistry and more efficient processors that help extend usage time. When combined with the impending loss of software support, these factors often push users toward replacement rather than continued use of aging hardware.

Software development for wearables requires careful optimization due to the constrained resources available on wrist-worn devices. The watchOS team must balance new feature development with the need to maintain smooth performance and acceptable battery consumption. By limiting support to more recent models, Apple can allocate engineering resources toward innovations that would be difficult or impossible to implement effectively on older hardware. This approach mirrors the strategy used for iOS, where older iPhones eventually lose access to the newest versions of the mobile operating system.

The news has generated mixed reactions across online communities. Some users express disappointment that their relatively recent purchases will soon stop receiving major updates, while others accept the decision as an expected part of owning technology products. Forums dedicated to Apple Watch discussions contain numerous threads where owners share their plans, with many deciding to upgrade while others intend to continue using their current devices until hardware failure occurs.

Compatibility with future health features remains a significant factor for many buyers. Apple has steadily expanded the Apple Watch’s role in medical monitoring, with features like ECG capabilities and irregular rhythm notifications receiving clearance from health authorities. Future enhancements in this area will likely require the processing power and sensor accuracy found only in newer models. Users who rely on their watches for health insights may find the limitations of older devices increasingly apparent as these capabilities expand.

The transition away from older Apple Watch models also reflects broader trends in consumer electronics. Manufacturers face constant pressure to balance support for existing customers with the need to innovate and create compelling reasons for upgrades. Apple’s approach has generally involved providing several years of updates followed by a clear cutoff, giving users reasonable time to enjoy their purchases before encouraging them to move to newer hardware.

Those who choose to keep using unsupported Apple Watches after watchOS 11 launches can still enjoy a capable smartwatch experience. The devices will continue to pair with iPhones, display notifications, track activities, and provide essential health data. The main differences will appear in the absence of new interface elements, advanced algorithms, and features that specifically require the latest operating system. For casual users, these limitations may prove minor compared to the continued utility of the hardware they already own.

Apple typically releases watchOS updates in the fall alongside new iPhone models, though exact timing can vary based on development progress and testing results. The first developer betas have already revealed several changes, and public betas are expected to follow in the coming months. Users with supported devices can install these early versions to experience new features ahead of the official launch, while those with older watches must wait for confirmation that their specific model has indeed been excluded.

The company’s support documentation now clearly lists compatible devices for watchOS 11, removing any ambiguity about which models will receive the update. This transparency helps users make informed decisions about whether to purchase a new Apple Watch or continue with their current one. As the release date approaches, more details about specific new features will emerge, potentially influencing upgrade decisions for those on the fence.

For businesses and organizations that deploy Apple Watches to employees, this support change requires planning. Companies using older models for workforce management, health tracking, or communication purposes will need to budget for replacements to maintain access to the latest security updates and features. The predictable nature of Apple’s support timeline allows IT departments to prepare for these transitions well in advance.

The Apple Watch has evolved from a novel accessory into an essential device for millions of users who depend on it for fitness motivation, health monitoring, communication, and convenience. Each new version of watchOS adds meaningful improvements that enhance these capabilities, making the loss of updates a significant consideration for long-term users. While older models remain perfectly serviceable for basic tasks, the full potential of the platform now resides in devices that can run the newest software.

As Apple continues to refine its wearable platform, the gap between older and newer models will likely widen. Features that once seemed advanced quickly become standard, and each generation builds upon the last with more sophisticated sensors and processing abilities. Users who upgrade regularly enjoy the benefits of these advances, while those who keep their watches longer accept trade-offs in exchange for avoiding additional expense.

The decision to end support for the Apple Watch Series 4, Series 5, Series 6, and first-generation SE reflects the natural progression of technology rather than any sudden hardware failure. These watches have provided years of reliable service and will continue doing so even without watchOS 11. For many owners, the announcement simply confirms what they may have already suspected about the lifespan of their devices. The key lies in understanding personal needs and determining whether the new features justify the cost of upgrading to a compatible model.

Apple’s approach to software support for its watches has remained consistent over time, providing a predictable framework that helps consumers plan their technology purchases. By maintaining this policy, the company ensures that development efforts focus on hardware capable of delivering the best possible experience. While the end of updates for older models may disappoint some users, it enables the continued advancement of features that define the Apple Watch as a leading wearable device. Those affected by this change now face a choice between continuing with proven hardware or embracing newer models that will receive ongoing software enhancements for years to come.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/CgsDeaY