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