Technology

Whether it’s a vacuum cleaner, a hand dryer, an air purifier, or a fan, Dyson products rarely look like anything else on the market — and that’s particularly apparent at the company’s campus in Malmesbury, southwest England, where images of recent launches decorate the walls like modern art. The sprawling complex, in a particularly beautiful patch of Wiltshire countryside, is home to Dyson’s global Research, Design and Development (RDD) center, and the Dyson Institute, where students from around the world study while working alongside engineers on live projects. I visited the center to meet the company’s Chief Engineer Jake Dyson — son of founder Sir James Dyson — and learn more about the company’s approach to design.

Jake Dyson didn’t join his father’s business immediately; instead he set up a workshop and made a name for himself in the world of industrial lighting. Sitting in his office, I asked whether his experience in that sector had contributed to his work at Dyson today.

“Yes, it comes down to identifying problems and solving them,” he explained. “When LEDs first entered the market, I realized people weren’t cooling them properly. The promise of LEDs is that they should last a lifetime, but in reality they were being treated like disposable lightbulbs. I visited Osram in Asia, and they explained that if you keep the diode temperature below about 50C [120F, you can maintain brightness, color quality, and lifespan. That became my goal.

Dyson's unique product designs take center stage at the company's campus in Malmesbury, UK (Image credit: Getty Images / Bloomberg)

“I looked at how satellites manage heat. In space, temperatures swing from extremely hot to extremely cold, so they need precise thermal control. I applied similar thinking by designing systems that passively dissipate heat. For example, the heat moves away from the chip and is cooled by airflow, maintaining a stable temperature even at high power. That process, spotting a problem and solving it, is what drives everything.”

That problem-solving approach has always been the driving force behind the Dyson brand, and explains its unusual portfolio of products; its engineers have never been afraid to venture into new areas when there’s a problem to be solved.

“Sometimes it comes from frustration," said Jake Dyson. "'This product is rubbish, how can we make it better?’ Other times it’s curiosity: ‘Why does this work the way it does?’”

Problem-first design

James Dyson’s book Invention: A Life of Learning Through Failure, describes how the problem-first process led to the creation of many of the company’s most iconic and recognizable products — starting with a humble wheelbarrow. Dyson and his wife Deidre were renovating a house in Gloucestershire, England, and wanted to create a garden, but the traditional tools proved frustrating.

“I used a navy barrow in anger and its limitations became increasingly clear,” writes Dyson. “Cement slopped out of it. Its tubular legs sunk into the ground. It was hard to steer. Its sharp edges damaged doorframes. The more I used it, the more I realized that nobody had really thought about these problems or bothered to fix them.”

After much experimentation with shapes, materials, and manufacturing processes, the result was the Ballbarrow: a molded plastic bucket on a steel frame, with the conventional wheel replaced by a pneumatic ball made from EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate). This spread the weight of the load more evenly on soft ground, and was easier to maneuver than a wheel — and in bright orange, it looked unlike anything else at the time.

Dyson products are always designed to solve a problem — the Airblade hand dryer was created to reduce waste from paper towels in public bathrooms (Image credit: Getty Images, Gado)

The product itself was a success, but due to a series of poor business decisions, Dyson senior eventually lost control of the company he had founded around it, Kirk-Dyson, and was ultimately kicked out by the other shareholders.

“I had lost five years of work by not valuing my creation,” he wrote. “I had failed to protect the one thing that was most valuable to me.”

It was a painful experience, but one he learned from as he pressed on with identifying and solving problems — starting with the creation of the first cyclonic vacuum cleaner, which he designed after realizing that dust bags don’t just serve to collect dust — they also act as filters that block airflow, drastically reducing suction power.

“I remembered the same clogging problem on the calico cloth with the powder coating in the Ballbarrow factory and the giant cyclone we had made to solve it,” he wrote. “What if I could develop a much smaller version and replace the clogging bag in a vacuum cleaner?”

Thousands of prototypes later (5,127 to be precise), he had the world’s first bagless vacuum — and a vast collection of patents to protect it.

The Dyson Supersonic was created to solve the problem of heavy and cumbersome hair dryers, with a lighter motor and a center of gravity that sits in your palm (Image credit: Future)

Dyson’s understanding of airflow and cyclonic technology has informed almost all of the company’s subsequent products; but like the vacuum, each one started with a problem. The Dyson Airblade hand dryer was created to reduce waste paper towels; the Airmultiplier fan solved the issue of ‘choppy’ air from conventional fan blades; the Pure Hot+Cool purifier was made to tackle indoor air pollution; and the Supersonic hairdryer solved the problem of heavy and uncomfortable hairdryers with weighty motors.

In every case, the form of the finished product was dictated by the problem it was designed to solve — even if the result looked totally unlike established versions of the device.

“That’s why Dyson products often look unusual; they’re built around their function,” said Jake Dyson in his Malmesbury office. “They’re also beautiful. A hair dryer has a hole through it because of how the airflow works. Fans and other products expose their engineering principles through the way they look — we’re not hiding how things work, we’re expressing it.”

Creative color

Those unusual designs are often set off by equally unusual color schemes, which tend to highlight buttons, switches, removable canisters, and other functional parts.

“We have a team here, CMF, which is colors, materials and finishes, that look into the appearance but also materials of our products," said Jake Dyson.

The CMF team doesn’t just draw on experience from successful projects, but also failed ones like the cancelled Dyson electric car, which provided finish and material ideas for many of the company’s health and beauty devices.

Most recently, CMF lent its expertise to Dyson's first hand-held fan — the Dyson HushHet Mini Cool — which launched just in time for a series of heatwaves in the UK. It sold out almost immediately, and after testing it myself, I can see why; it’s compact, much more powerful than its closest rival, the Shark ChillPill, and more affordable to boot.

“We’ve seen strong demand [for the HushHet Mini Cool], and it’s one of those products where people don’t initially realize they need it but once they try it, they understand the value,” said Jake Dyson. “It’s designed to be reusable, not disposable like cheaper alternatives. I've seen people with the cheap plastic fans that break very [easily], but we wanted ours to be well engineered, durable, quiet and efficient.

The Dyson HushJet Mini Cool fan is the company's latest product, and proved enormously popular during a hot British summer (Image credit: Future)

“We’re working on scaling production, but demand has been very strong, so availability can sometimes be limited. That said, it is coming back to market.”

So what does the future hold? The company is investigating ways to use AI where it will actually add value, helping machines interpret data and make better decisions, and Jake Dyson says that "vision systems and new product directions" are the most exciting areas for him.

"We’ve historically been very strong in mechanical engineering motors, airflow, performance. But now, adding cameras and vision systems allows machines to detect what they’re looking at, understand it and act accordingly.

"That opens up entirely new categories of products and capabilities, so we’re moving from purely mechanical devices to machines that can see, think, and respond, and that’s where the next wave of innovation is coming from."

It'll be fascinating to see which problems the company will be looking to solve with those new technologies, and there's no way of knowing what the next generation of Dyson products will look like as the company expands into new areas. We'll just have to wait and see — but it's definitely not going to be boring.

Microsoft has been battling to truly establish itself in the device market for years now, with its Surface suite covering everything from foldable smartphones to 2-in-1s up to more traditional laptops and desktops - all the way up to the enormous Surface Hub (RIP).

But the company has seemingly always fallen short - whether it's battery life, falling short on power, or the unavoidable lock-in with the Microsoft 365 experience.

However its latest collection of Surface for Business releases, framed squarely at work and enterprise users, looked to address all of that, and having been using one for the last few weeks now, I can safely say, Microsoft may finally have cracked the formula for a great working laptop at last.

Going hands-on

Microsoft has positioned the Surface Laptop for Business squarely at enterprise customers rather than consumers, and it's a substantial refresh over the previous generation, with the biggest improvements around AI, security, manageability, battery life and repairability.

The device is light and portable, weighing in at just over 1.35kg, and its slim build (just 0.69in in width) means it slipped easily into a rucksack or carry-on bag.

It's a stylish device to look at as well - the polished black anodized aluminium build is far more striking than other identikit dull business laptops around today, with a well-designed keyboard and touchpad that offer more than enough space.

(Image credit: Future / Mike Moore)

But where Microsoft is looking to take a real step forward with the Surface Laptop for Business is in hardware, where the company has equipped the device with Intel Core Ultra (Series 3) processor, up to 64 GB LPDDR5X RAM and up to 1 TB removable Gen4 SSD.

Crucially though, as with many modern devices, it also features AI-specific hardware, with an Intel AI Boost NPU delivering 50 TOPS of AI performance.

Along with offering local AI processing on the device, the NPU looks to perform a number of other tasks, from improved battery life to greater Windows performance. This is a decent level of performance, but if you're looking for tasks such as CAD, 3D rendering or AI model training, you may want something a bit more powerful, with a dedicated Nvidia GPU.

This looks to boost productivity and efficiency across the board - and I can say this was definitely true when I was working on the go.

Sadly I wasn't doing particularly AI-heavy work to really test it out, but I was able to take the device with me on a week-long overseas work trip, using it in conference keynotes, remote interviews, and site visits, and it absolutely ticked all my boxes when it came to responsiveness, usefulness and battery life.

At home however, it wasn't quite the same story.

It should also have meant the device was well-placed to be the centerpiece of my home office set-up, but unfortunately I frequently found issues when trying to connect a range of devices, from monitors to Bluetooth keyboards - this may have been a driver-led issue, but it was frustrating for quite some time.

The lack of ports may be an issue for some users - as there is just one USB-A connection, and two USB-C ports, which might be an issue for some creators. I use a docking station for my set-up, so for my usage I was largely OK - however as mentioned, even this wasn't always responsive - and it's a shame Microsoft has ditched the USB-A port on the charger block cable as well, as this has definitely saved me in the past with previous Surface devices.

(Image credit: Future / Mike Moore)

Microsoft has also introduced a more advanced haptic touchpad for the Surface Laptop for Business, promising a more consistent click feel and improved gesture support, as well as customizable feedback. Although slightly smaller than my usual work device (a HP EliteBook) I found the touchpad incredibly responsive and interactive, making navigation between different apps and windows a breeze.

My device was equipped with the new integrated privacy display - a feature which gained a lot of attention when it was included in the latest Samsung Galaxy flagship smartphone earlier this year.

Toggled on via the alternate F1 button function, the privacy display instantly makes the screen difficult to read from side angles - no need for an external magnetic privacy filter any more.

This is obviously pretty useful for those workers accessing private or proprietary information, stopping snoopers or spies from catching a glimpse, but it also offers an anti-glare coating which should be a hit with everyone.

I loved it - but will you?

Will it be the ideal device for everyone? Probably not, as being a Surface device means it is closely tied-in with the Microsoft ecosystem - so if you use Microsoft 365 at work (which I don't) you'll have a much smoother set-up and overall experience.

The price will also be a sticking point for some shoppers, as my model starts from £1,599 - with the top spec hitting £2,499 - probably out of reach for most start-ups and SMBs.

But overall, I was incredibly impressed by the Surface Laptop for Business, easily the best Microsoft device I've used for work by a mile - and one I hope to get to use again sometime in the future.

Gaming is edging closer towards a divisive new normal, with Sony set to stop releasing physical game discs for PlayStation consoles in 2028, and Rockstar Games announcing that physical copies of Grand Theft Auto 6 will come with a download code in the box, rather than a disc.

Unsurprisingly, gamers attached to their physical media aren’t happy with either development, and the backlash online has been fierce, with PlayStation’s social media posts being met with furious demands for Sony to reverse course.

Sony’s plans, and the fact that Microsoft is seemingly set to following suit, also mean GTA 6, one of the most anticipated games of all-time, likely won’t ever be available as a physical copy.

I spoke with Katarzyna Jakubiec, the chief business officer at G2A, an online marketplace that provides digital game keys. She told me that interest in PlayStation Store gift cards was at record levels on the site before Sony’s and Rockstar's announcements.

That’s great for marketplaces like G2A, but not so much for gamers. If Sony’s plans do come into effect in 2028, gamers will increasingly be forced into buying gift cards (and already are for GTA 6) as one of the few options for cheaper digital purchases.

Appreciating discs while they last... (Image credit: Future / Isaiah Williams)

That partially explains the increasing popularity of PlayStation Store gift cards on marketplaces like Loaded and G2A, especially since physical copies of games in general are becoming less common. But despite potential growth in terms of G2A's site visitors and earnings once 2028 arrives, Jakubiec is sympathetic to the objections of gamers and their ability to make a purchasing choice is evident.

"GTA 6 pre-orders have reinforced a trend we were already seeing rather than changing the market overnight," Jakubiec said. "During the pre-sale period, PlayStation gift card purchases on G2A reached record levels and continue to grow as anticipation for the launch builds, showing that many players are planning their purchases well ahead of release rather than waiting until launch day.

"While more players are embracing digital formats for the flexibility and convenience they offer, it's equally clear that physical copies continue to mean a great deal to many gamers, whether that's because of ownership, collection, or simply the experience of buying a physical game.

"We don't see this as an either-or conversation, and in an ideal world, people should have the choice to buy games in the format that suits them best. Physical and digital both have an important place within gaming, and different people will always have different preferences."

(Image credit: Rockstar Games / Sony)

Unfortunately, that's not how Sony sees it; in fact, Sony's stance aligns with the idea that more consumers are purchasing more games digitally, as it makes the controversial decision to end game discs based on 'shifting trends in consumer preference', suggesting that physical game copies are becoming obsolete.

However, the reaction online and from key game industry figures like Dan Houser (Rockstar Games co-founder), who is no longer working at the game studio, indicate that gamers aren't, and frankly, never will be, done with physical game copies — and Jakubiec shares the same sentiment.

"The reaction has been just as telling as the decision itself," she adds. "It highlights how passionate and diverse the gaming community is, and why major industry decisions need to consider the different ways people choose to buy, own, and experience their games.

She says that whether Sony decides to reconsider its plans is "ultimately for them to determine" — which seems unlikely, given that Sony has so far refused to reverse its decision, and shows no sign of changing its mind.

Jakubiec adds, "Whatever direction the industry takes, moments like this reinforce the need to listen to players and communicate those decisions clearly."

Did you know TechRadar now has membership?

(Image credit: Future)

Become a TechRadar Insider by simply clicking 'Join Now' at the top of this page. Have a question? Please email membership@techradar.com

The program will take the sting out of owning Apple devices, including Macs, iPads and Apple Watches.

When I first caught a glimpse of The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales, it sparked a great sense of anticipation within me. After all, Square Enix and Claytechworks were collaborating to bring a brand new HD-2D RPG to the table, which appeared to combine sprinklings of classic Zelda titles with the visual, sonic, and environmental grandeur from series such as Mana and Dragon Quest.

Review info

Platform reviewed: PS5
Available on: PS5, Nintendo Switch 2, Xbox Series X and Series S, PC
Release date: June 18, 2026

I’m a huge fan of the HD-2D graphical style, and massively enjoyed recent releases such as Final Fantasy: The Ivalice Chronicles and Dragon Quest 1 & 2 HD-2D Remake, but I still wasn’t quite sure if I’d love The Adventures of Elliot. Was the action combat going to be polished and engaging enough? Was the world going to deliver the spectacle and appeal conjured up with other series? Would the narrative have me hooked?

Well, after playing the game for more than 25 hours now, I have an answer to all of those questions. Here’s what I made of The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales.

The good: combat that exceeds expectations

(Image credit: Square Enix)

Let’s start by addressing my curiosity surrounding combat in The Adventures of Elliot — just how good is it? Well, I’m pleased to report that I had a lot of fun with the action in this game. It clearly pulls on 2D Zelda, with real-time combat that challenges you to use a variety of weapons to overcome your foes.

You can equip two weapons at once, and while I typically used my sword for close range attacks and bow for projectiles, I found genuine utility in a lot of equipment, be that bombs, a hammer, spear, and more. Combat feels fluid, responsive, and well balanced. You can also defend or parry with a shield, and using this to avoid big damage can be crucial.

There’s a pretty fast, high-octane feel to battles, big or small, and by defeating multiple foes in a row, you can build up a streak to obtain better drops. This adds a layer of fun to combat, and gives you a genuine reason to seek out and destroy random creatures in your vicinity — I had a lot of fun pushing myself to get that streak as high as possible.

Combat is absolutely at its best during boss fights, though. These can offer genuine challenges, and often require you to switch up attacks, defend with care, and employ a variety of weapons to get the win. The satisfaction I got when evading a robotic titan’s assault and slashing it to smithereens with my blade was nothing short of exhilarating.

Best bit

(Image credit: Square Enix)

The highlight of this game is without question its majestic boss battles. Whether I was taking on Minister Kaifried or a bunch of deadly robotic guardians, I enjoyed making use of my full arsenal of weapons in order to emerge victorious.

What’s more, you can customize weapons with something called Magicite, which imparts specific abilities to help you wipe out the opposition with greater ease. This is executed very well, and helps you to raise attack power, unlock elemental attacks, and extend the reach of your attacks, for instance.

By spending more Tul (the in-universe currency), you can use more Magicite, and this helps you scale in terms of power as the game unfolds, making progression feel natural and well-paced.

Other gameplay elements are solid too. Platforming isn’t a massive part of the game, but feels precise and smooth. Your companion for most of the journey, Faie, also has abilities such as dashing and warping, which make traversing environments and taking down enemies even more varied and seamless, and you can unlock more of — and improve on — said abilities as the game progresses.

The not-so good: a narrative missing its spark

(Image credit: Square Enix)

So, the gameplay in The Adventures of Elliot is a hit, in my book. The brilliant bosses and close contests against frogs, robots, slugs, and more kept me coming back for more. But unfortunately, some things made me feel reluctant to indulge in long, uninterrupted play sessions — namely, the game’s narrative and dialogue.

Simply put, the story in The Adventures of Elliot lacks the spark that I was looking for. It often feels flat, lacking moments of surprise and suspense, and its largely predictable plot points paired with sluggish and dull dialogue meant that I was tempted, at times, to skip through a few scenes — something I never do with story-driven RPGs.

On top of this, the cast of characters is surprisingly weak for a Square Enix game. The protagonist, Elliot, feels somewhat hollow, and spends much of the game telling people to follow their heart, chase their dreams, and to believe in themselves. To be blunt, it feels a bit sappy, and despite his striking appearance, he’s actually quite an uninteresting lead.

(Image credit: Square Enix)

A lot of the other characters are written in a slightly wooden way, too. Elliot will meet them, they’ll reveal something that troubles them — be that isolation, missing a loved one, or seeking connection with others — the hero will do something to assist them, and then you move on. As a result, characters often lack nuance or depth, and it feels hard to care about the various individuals involved.

Like a lot of other players have pointed out online, your companion, Faie, is also rather irritating. She speaks up…a lot…and her hand-holdy, pointless interjections can feel grating. You can mute your companion, thankfully, which is a good thing given that the fairy’s high-pitched tone is still haunting me.

Much of the game is centered around time travel, another element that could’ve been handled more effectively in my view. A lot of the environments look identical across different eras, and enemy variety can be pretty limited across time as well.

I did like the discoveries you could make across different ages, though, and hunting for new weapons in the various dungeons, and general exploration, was pretty enjoyable. My critique here, however, is that the puzzles within various areas are very easy, and require little effort to overcome. Therefore, anyone seeking out the ingenious design of classic Zelda dungeons may be left wanting more.

Final thoughts: a new IP with growing pains

(Image credit: Square Enix)

The Adventures of Elliot still nails a lot of the fundamentals, with a beautiful soundtrack, gorgeous HD-2D visuals, and a neat UI. But when I look at the full package, I’m left feeling conflicted.

While the combat is slick and enticing, the underwhelming story and lack of variation in environments and enemies slightly disappointed me.

Although I still had a decent time with The Adventures of Elliot, and I enjoyed its delicious HD-2D graphics and high-octane battles, it’s clear that the new IP has gone through a few growing pains. And unfortunately, its forgettable characters and lacking dialogue bring the overall experience down a touch, meaning it doesn’t quite hit the highest of heights.

Should you play The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales?

(Image credit: Square Enix)Play it if...

You love classic Zelda combat
If you’re a sucker for combat in 2D Zelda games, then this title will surely hit the spot for you. The pace of battle and numerous weapon types keep combat feeling varied and exciting throughout the game’s runtime.

You’re a fan of the HD-2D visual style
If, like me, you’ve enjoyed the HD-2D visual style before, you'll almost certainly love it again here. The game is full of beautiful backdrops and environments, and the expressive 16-bit style sprites really pop.

Don't play it if...

You’re expecting a gripping story
The biggest weakness of this title is its underwhelming story, with dull dialogue and an uninspired cast of characters holding the overall experience back from greatness.

You want tough puzzles
Although in-game dungeons hold some highly entertaining boss fights, reaching them can often feel like a formality. That’s largely because puzzles are very straightforward, with little challenge involved.

Accessibility features

There are a number of ways to customize the experience in The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales. There are a handful of text languages, and you can swap between English or Japanese voices. You can alter text display speed, and set dialogue to auto if you want to watch scenes unfurl naturally.

There are a range of difficulty modes too, and you can remap controls to your liking for a more custom experience. Unfortunately, there’s no colorblind mode, or similar.

(Image credit: Square Enix)How I reviewed Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D Remake

(Image credit: Square Enix)

I spent more than 25 hours playing through the main story and side quests in The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales. I played on Normal difficulty in this instance.

For the most part, I played the game on my PS5, which is connected up to my Sky Glass Gen 2 TV and Marshall Heston 120 soundbar. However, I occasionally dipped into the title on my PS Portal, and used the Sennheiser CX 80U to enjoy in-game audio while on the go.

More generally, I’ve reviewed a wide range of games here at TechRadar, though my main focus has been on RPGs, including Square Enix titles like Final Fantasy: The Ivalice Chronicles and Dragon Quest 1 & 2 HD-2D Remake.

First reviewed: July 2026

Don’t fret if you missed out on recent back-to-school deals. Sales tax holidays can help you save on laptops, school supplies, clothing and more. Learn more about it here.

Vibe coding lets you create everything from one-page websites to complex applications simply by explaining what you want in plain English.

This relatively new technology is an undeniable game-changer, tearing down barriers, helping small businesses and entrepreneurs build tools that just would not have been accessible before.

But is vibe coding really all it is made out to be?

I caught up with Nikita Obukhov, Founder and CEO of website-building platform Tilda, to get his thoughts on how vibe coding is, and isn't, going to change how we approach website building. We also dive into some of the risks associated with vibe coding and hear some advice on where it can be best applied to help you grow your business.

How is vibe coding challenging the more established drag-and-drop website builder space?

The rate of progress in neural networks is insane. Everything is moving very fast: new top-tier models arrive every six months, and what looked impossible a year ago is now generated at really good, really stable quality. Naturally, for us — and for every website builder out there — that's stressful, a zone of discomfort.

Tilda made building a website accessible to a non-professional. Before that, you had to deploy WordPress or some CMS, and if you weren't a technical specialist, you couldn't really do it properly on your own.

Now building a site has been democratised and is as accessible as editing an ordinary Google Doc. The whole concept of the modern website builder is exactly that: letting anyone create a site without technical skills. Now, what AI generates simplifies the process even further.

For site builders, this is a moment of discomfort and stress. And it sets off a search: where can site builders still be useful? It strongly affects the overall product roadmap.

I can't say that the search is finished. We're in the middle of working it out, of finding the point: why not just go to the neural network — why go to a site builder as well? It's a process of transformation, and we hope we'll come through it and stay useful to the user.

How does vibe coding a website differ from using an AI website builder?

Vibe coding brings in editing by voice: you tell the agent in text or out loud what you want, and the agent generates it. It's genuinely new.

The term "vibe coding" is itself very blurry. You can call it vibe coding when you simply ask a chat interface to generate code and get plain HTML back; then there's vibe coding where an agent builds you a full site out of several files, spins up a virtual environment on localhost so you can test, and lets you connect databases if you need more than a static site.

Site builders brought visual editing — making editing simpler without touching code. Vibe coding brings in editing by voice: you tell the agent in text or out loud what you want, and the agent generates it. It's genuinely new.

Vibe coding lets you work in your own infrastructure. Most often you either pick a service to host your generated code and deploy, or you go the classic route: take a virtual server and set up deployment there.

With an AI website builder, all the interaction happens on the platform itself. Even though the neural network underneath is effectively the same in both cases (both vibe coding and the builder are usually running some top-tier model under the hood), that's exactly where the fundamental difference lies: either you work entirely in your own — or rather, rented — environment, or you work inside the website builder's ecosystem.

Both have their pros and cons. Pure vibe coding gives you the most control. You're no longer limited by the site builder's platform, but it adds complexity. You need to think about things most people don't anticipate when they start.

Take image loading. You need to know the current best practice: images should ideally sit on a CDN. So now you also have to work out how to deploy your images to a CDN. With a website builder, all the code and everything else lives on the builder's infrastructure, so you never think about it.

Second, protection from DDoS attacks. If your business has any visibility at all, taking down a site on an ordinary VPS is very easy. So you have to think about how to protect it. Fortunately, Cloudflare has a nominally free tier, but it's still something to think about, because DDoS attacks are fairly common.

Ultimately, with vibe coding, you write everything yourself via an agent that simplifies a lot for you; you barely touch the code. With a builder, you work inside the site builder's ecosystem, using the interface — and, naturally, using prompting to create the design as well.

Will vibe coding eventually replace drag-and-drop website builders?

Realistically, I think we'll end up with both. Vibe coding still has a difficult entry point; it's slower and harder. Site builders are integrating vibe coding themselves, Tilda included: we've released a vibe coding tool called Vibe Block, where you generate blocks or entire pages from a prompt in exactly the same way.

But site builders go further. I don't believe they'll disappear entirely. It's a whole platform; site builders take hosting off your hands completely and give you a convenient tool for controlling things not only by voice but graphically.

On top of that, AI may not fully understand you, may not quite do what you need if you want your own high-quality, distinctive solution. Take Zero Block, for instance: it's a Photoshop or Figma equivalent, a fully graphical interface where designers work and produce exactly what the client needs. That's hard to achieve through vibe coding.

For ordinary users, a website builder is simply faster. It absorbs a huge amount of what you'd otherwise have to do yourself. An ordinary entrepreneur running a small organisation has no need to get into server hosting or how to issue a certificate. They have other things to do. So they'll go to a site builder regardless.

Greater control isn’t always a good thing. How does Tilda set guardrails to protect against poor design decisions?

Tilda doesn't constrain you at all and, unfortunately, doesn't protect you from bad design decisions.

If a user doesn’t have graphic design skills — they use the ready-made blocks from the block library, and that protects them. Those are good, proven design decisions that stop you from making a complete mess. And as your level rises and you're no longer afraid of free-form design, Zero Block lets you make anything at all.

Users are protected in a lot of places from bad practice, because a great deal of niche, purely technical work sits under the hood. By default, all images load lazily. Under the hood, they're also adapted, converted to modern formats, and compressed. The platform takes all that nonsense on itself.

Vibe coding offers users an opportunity to build complex tools using plain-English prompts. Does using it for simple tasks like landing page creation risk overcomplicating things?

Vibe-coding a landing page from scratch is completely pointless.

In my view, vibe-coding a landing page from scratch is completely pointless — regardless of the website builder. On one hand, as a user, it's interesting. Plenty of people who love technology will get a kick out of going through it.

But if you look under the hood — do the site's visitors actually get any benefit from it being vibe-coded rather than built on a site builder? No. On the contrary, there are more opportunities to make a mistake.

For example, how do you share editing rights? That's a simple thing a site builder always gives you out of the box. With a website builder, you can let someone manage products but not page content, for example. That's a perfectly ordinary question of permissions management, and it protects your site. With vibe coding, you still have to work out how to do it properly and grant those rights.

In my opinion, vibe code is excessive for most sites. It’s brilliant for building micro-SaaS. But for building landing pages or simple sales material? Absolutely not, because it still ends up cheaper and faster on a builder, even if in this current wave of enthusiasm it doesn't feel that way.

Vibe coding outputs often need repetitive tweaking to make them fit for purpose. Is vibe coding really the time saver it is made out to be?

On one hand, a neural network gives you freedom, but on the other, you have to be able to articulate what you want. That's a problem. Users try vibe code, write something, and aren't happy with the result because the neural network generated it badly. Then you have to sit there prompting and fiddling to get the quality you want.

A site builder still works very well when you don't know what you want. You get a large block library and a large template library — you can pick a style visually and see exactly what you're going to get, rather than waiting for it all to generate and cycling through ten attempts.

The biggest problem with prompting, of course, is the time between iterations. You wait while the neural network generates and regenerates the code, and that's slow. Sometimes it's very hard to make exactly the change an interface would let you make easily. Explaining in a prompt that you want this changed to that can be devilishly hard. In the end, you're spending time on something as trivial as recolouring a button: five seconds in the interface, whereas here you write a prompt, it thinks, it regenerates the style — that's a minute.

So making changes through prompts is fairly tiring. Which is why we see the future in synergy: you get the first result with vibe code, then refine the details through the interface.

Are there any security issues users should be aware of when using vibe coding to create websites?

If you're selling products, say, vibe-coding an online store…well, good luck.

First, security in the sense of things simply working: a neural network can break your project, taking it from working to non-working through some internal error or problem. A neural network is a roulette wheel — it can hit the jackpot or lose everything. It's much the same here.

Second, you still need to write the code correctly. If you're selling products, say, vibe-coding an online store…well, good luck. I wouldn't risk it, because there are price calculations, stock checks, a lot of things we've been doing for a very long time.

A neural network is a roulette wheel — it can hit the jackpot or lose everything.

Equally, you don't always understand what it has written. If you're building in interaction with users and personal data and taking it further, you're creating risk for the users who trust you with that data. If you've also vibe-coded some mini-CRM of your own inside, that adds to the exposure.

If you have a static site — just a landing page that displays things — there's nothing much there; a static site is hard to do anything with. But once you start processing orders or submissions inside it, or accumulating user data, that puts your service at serious risk, and the risk is a certainty. We see it in practice, and it shows up in the news: people get a fast result, and it turns out to be unreliable. So you have to assess the risks soberly, and it's better to avoid them.

The iPhone 7 isn’t remembered as being a particularly important iPhone release, but it did represent several ‘firsts’ for Apple. It was the first iPhone to lose the traditional headphone jack, the first to boast IP67 water resistance, and the first to swap the mechanical Home button for a pressure-sensitive equivalent.

The iPhone 7 was also the first standard-sized iPhone to feature Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), which uses physical gyroscopes to counteract shake-induced blur, and has been a feature of every iPhone released since (that’s 35 models and counting).

Why am I writing about the iPhone 7? Because it arrived almost a decade ago — on September 16, 2016, to be precise — and because I came across TechRadar’s iPhone 7 review sample during a recent clearout of our office cupboard.

I’m currently using the iPhone Air — released on September 19, 2025 — as my daily phone, which is a similarly thin and lightweight iPhone with only one rear camera, and so I thought it would be fun (and nostalgic!) to compare the camera capabilities of these two devices to see how far Apple’s camera hardware has come in 10 years. The answer, as you can imagine, is 'very far'.

Specs

Before I jump into the side-by-side comparisons, here’s a table detailing the key camera specs of the iPhone 7 and iPhone Air:

iPhone 7

iPhone Air

Rear camera:

12MP, f/1.8, 28mm

48MP, f/1.6, 26mm

Front-facing camera:

7MP, f/2.2, 32mm

18MP, f/1.9, 20mm

It's worth noting that the iPhone Air defaults to shooting in 24MP, rather than 48MP, via a 'Fusion' process that merges 12 high-dynamic-range pixels and 12 low-dynamic-range pixels into a single 24MP shot. You can choose to shoot in 48MP on new iPhones like the iPhone Air, but I stuck to the default option for this comparison.

Photo gallery

Right, onto the side-by-side photos. I took both phones on a walk around the neighborhood, comparing their wide-shooting capabilities, ability to capture color, digital zoom capabilities (neither device has a dedicated telephoto zoom), and low-light shooting capabilities.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

First shot: a tree on the sidewalk. This isn't a particularly demanding scenario, but at first glance, both phones appear to have captured a similarly detailed image. Apple's approach to color science doesn't appear to have changed all that much in 10 years, either (at least in this example — more on color science later).

If you zoom in, though, the iPhone Air's shot is clearly superior. Check out the detail on the property nameplate to the left of the tree, for instance, or the paving stones in the foreground. The iPhone 7 smears over details it can't capture, while the iPhone Air's sensor picks up lots more information. These are subtle differences, but the iPhone Air's shot is the better of the two.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

This is another example of subtle differences. The two images look similar at first glance, but the iPhone Air captures more brick, metal, and pavement detail than the iPhone 7. The dog is just as cute in both images, mind you.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

Pub time! Again, the iPhone 7 does a decent job here, but the detail and color of the main building are more real-looking in the iPhone Air's image. If you zoom in on the main Holly Bush logo or the Hollybush House sign, you'll notice the difference in clarity. The shadows in the latter photo are also more pronounced, which speaks to the iPhone Air's superior dynamic range.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

How about a butterfly? The iPhone Air's image is clearly the richer of the two. The leaves, branches, and pattern on the butterfly itself are more detailed in the shot captured with Apple's newer phone, while the iPhone 7's image is softer, almost as if there's a streak of sunblock on the lens. This is the first shot where I think, "Yeah, that photo was shot on an old iPhone."

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

This is a tricky one. The petal detail on the main flower is slightly better on the iPhone Air shot, and the color of the rear wall is more accurate, too. But the iPhone 7 keeps more foreground detail intact (see the green leaves on the left and the red label at the bottom). We'll call it a draw.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

And here we come to the best example of Apple's modern approach to color science in action. On newer iPhones, Apple prioritizes style over realism, occasionally warming things up with more saturation, so shots have an almost yellowish quality. As you can see above, the ice cream is literally a different color in both pictures.

The iPhone 7's approach to this image is too cold — I chose the salted caramel flavor, and the older iPhone saps all the fun and warmth out of that decision. It makes the ice cream look unappetizing and the weather miserable. The iPhone Air's photo looks immeasurably warmer, and while my surroundings weren't quite that yellow, I'd rather exist in this sun-kissed world than in the iPhone 7's gloomy alternative.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

Another big win for the iPhone Air here. Neither phone has a dedicated zoom camera, so I had to employ digital zoom in both cases (around 4x), and the iPhone Air captures far, far more detail than the iPhone 7.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

So far (the zoom example above notwithstanding), the iPhone 7 has delivered less detailed but still largely usable images versus the iPhone Air. That stops when you switch to low-light scenarios.

In this example, the iPhone 7 just can't handle the bright light of my IKEA donut lamp — you can't even tell that it's a donut at all. The iPhone Air, meanwhile, captures the charming shape of the lamp itself as well as details in the shadows it creates. Look at the pattern on the cupboard door — it's simply not visible in the photo captured by the iPhone 7.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

Again, the difference is night and day here (almost literally). The candle in the iPhone 7 photo is extremely blown out — no pun intended — while the iPhone Air more accurately recreates what I was seeing with my eyes (read: light).

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

If this were a competition to see which phone could best recreate the neo-noir visual style, the iPhone 7 would win (the first photo is very Lynchian). Alas, it's not, and so here we have a great example of just how far the iPhone's night photography skills have come. The iPhone Air photo is more detailed, has better dynamic range, and has more accurate colors — try and read the number plates in the iPhone 7 photo, and tell me I'm wrong.

iPhone 7FutureiPhone AirFuture

Oh look, it's me! I'm actually quite impressed with the detail served up by the iPhone 7 here — the hairs on my head and face are equally visible in both examples — but the iPhone Air more accurately captures the whites of my eyes and the details of my complexion (read: the blemishes. Sigh.)

In fact, now I'm looking at the iPhone 7 photo again — specifically, my black eyes — I look a bit like a Great White Shark who's enjoying his last hours as a human. Maybe that's what Apple was going for in 2016?

Verdict

(Image credit: Future)

Surprise! The iPhone Air captured a better photo than the iPhone 7 in almost every example. That was to be expected, and, if you're spending close to four figures on one of the best iPhones in 2026, hoped for.

Apple's latest single-camera iPhone delivers superior details, colors, dynamic range, and digital zoom clarity than its predecessor 10 generations removed, and if that wasn't the case, you'd be worried for the company's future.

But in writing this comparison, I was pleasantly surprised by how well the iPhone 7 held up against the iPhone Air. At first glance, it delivered comparable photos on several occasions, only revealing itself to be a 10-year-old device when I zoomed in and dug into the details (or lack thereof). The low-light examples were a different story, but again, that's to be expected.

So, yes, iPhone photography has come a long way since 2016, but if you find yourself forced to use a banged-up old iPhone 7 for a few days (for whatever reason), it won't be totally incapable of capturing usable photos.

See what you missed in Daily Tech Insider from July 20–24.

The post AI Agents, Foldables, Cyberattacks, and Chip Deals Reshape Tech appeared first on TechRepublic.

The ‘SaaSpocalypse’ narrative continues to dominate investor outlooks, with fears that AI development is threatening the value of software companies. However, I believe that this is not a SaaSpocalypse, but instead a period of natural selection for the software industry – where the strong will thrive.

Widespread AI adoption is raising the bar, so SaaS providers must focus on delivering differentiated and highly valuable outcomes. Providers that are built on broad, undifferentiated offerings and don’t deliver clear, evolving value will soon go extinct and be replaced by simple AI solutions.

In contrast, software companies with true specialization, deep customer understanding, and defensible moats are well placed to strengthen and evolve their position in the AI era.

Deep customer knowledge

In the industrial mid-market, AI development needs to be grounded in practical applications. Manufacturers operate in physical, industrial environments where the priority is building and delivering the parts and products that power the real economy.

We know our customers are not looking to build the software themselves, or experiment with ‘vibe coding’, but instead they want their existing trusted technology partners to level-up their platforms in a secure, structured way.

Deep industry expertise, knowledge of specialized workflows, and decades of intricate data are the critical factors that pinpoint where real value can be delivered to customers. These elements are the most difficult for AI disruptors to attempt to simulate or replicate.

The impact of AI will meaningfully reshape how software is developed and delivered, but providers should continue to rely on established data moats and security frameworks.

The SaaS providers that own the bank of knowledge that existing software provides and capitalize on this deep expertise during AI adoption are the ones that will stand the test of time. Investing in AI platforms and agents that transform that knowledge into autonomous action will deliver exactly what customers need: improved decision making, elevated efficiency through margin expansion, and increased resilience.

One thing that remains constant is the pressure businesses are under to deliver more for less. To succeed at this critical juncture, software companies need to help businesses do just that through tactical and differentiated applications of AI within workflows.

Embedding AI securely with clear governance

Layering AI into workflows is a practical, high-impact way for businesses to scale without increasing expenditure significantly. When AI agents are embedded and trained in systems, they can automate routine tasks, surface actionable insights in context, and guide users through next-best actions. This frees up time for higher-value work.

When embedding AI tools, providers must prioritize governance by establishing clear guardrails, processes, and secure systems. Role-specific training is critical to ensure AI is embedded in workflows effectively while keeping business data secure.

Added AI capabilities play a central role in workforce development. As workflows become more intelligent, employees should be supported to build new skills to deliver higher-value work, while customers benefit from more responsive and capable systems.

Recognizing a natural progression beyond surface level AI integration, focusing on analysis, judgement and continuous improvement. To achieve this, providers can embed AI agents directly into the software environments that customers already depend on. In doing so, end users can enhance capability without introducing unnecessary risk or disruption to core operations.

AI does not replace expertise or SaaS; it raises the baseline and helps teams develop the skills needed to deliver more value.

Protecting margins

The industry is now moving beyond early enthusiasm for AI towards a more grounded understanding of its true cost and impact. As organizations begin to grapple with the realities of implementation, integration, governance and ongoing running costs, the conversation is becoming more balanced.

This shift will further separate those delivering meaningful, embedded value from those relying on surface-level AI features.

In periods of economic uncertainty and volatile market conditions, which is increasingly a global reality, companies need to build resilience through intelligent decision making and forward thinking. Where costs, energy prices, transport, and supplier availability shift quickly, manufactures are often relying on lagging indicators and manual spreadsheets that are outdated as soon as they are shared.

This latency be combatted by AI that is directly embedded into SaaS that can combine internal and external data to inform likely price changes and ideal buying windows.

Crucially, because these insights sit inside the platform customers utilize day to day, predictive recommendations are delivered in context with the right insight at the right moment. Real-time visibility into performance, supported by AI, allows businesses to act with greater confidence in uncertain conditions.

For customers, this translates to stronger margins, better outcomes, and increased business resilience. So, end-point users can experience an intuitive and informative platform that makes their job easier.

Going beyond the “either or” narrative

AI and SaaS are converging. Organizations that invest in both the technology and the capability to use it effectively will see the greatest return. With the right governance and a clear understanding of customer needs, AI becomes a force multiplier for the value SaaS already delivers, not a replacement for it.

The conversation needs to center on the customers using SaaS, who don’t want experimentations with code but technology they can trust delivered with clear process, security and reliability.

Ultimately, this is not the end of SaaS, but an inflection point to differentiate software providers. Those that embed AI meaningfully within trusted products and maintain genuine specialization will emerge stronger through this period of natural selection. Organizations that invest in both technology and the human capability to use it effectively will see the greatest return.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

As AI adoption accelerates, some workers will naturally feel apprehensive. Harvard Business Review found trust in employer-provided generative AI fell by 31% between May and July 2025, despite rising top-down pressure to leverage the technology and boost productivity. This shows a clear gap between leaders’ priorities, and those of their teams.

AI tools have the ability to lighten workloads across business units and drive measurable results: for instance, teams using AI as a core part of their sales functions were 65% more likely to increase win rates.

Yet narratives that frame AI squarely in terms of cost-cutting and headcount reduction are holding some employees back from embracing this technology despite the obvious upside.

The conversation has shifted from speculation to execution, yet many organizations still struggle to move beyond isolated pilots. Closing that gap is a job leadership must prioritize to realize the technology’s potential.

AI initiatives do not fail because the tools themselves are weak or ineffective, but instead because employees do not trust how the technology is being introduced, what new tools mean for their role, or whether they will still have a place once they are embedded.

The real challenge is helping teams overcome their AI apprehension by building their fluency, introducing clear guardrails, carving out time for practical training, and spotlighting use cases that make the solution feel controllable and purposeful, rather than opaque and threatening.

Putting trust and fluency at the forefront

AI is not going to take an employee’s job, but another human who uses it efficiently, and to their own advantage, will.

It will give rise to entirely new roles (prompt engineers, AI ethics officers, AI maintenance specialists) just as digital transformation created functions that barely existed a decade ago. When I worked at a global social media company a decade ago, "social selling" felt abstract. Now it is mainstream, and we are on the same trajectory with AI, only faster.

When leaders talk about AI purely in terms of doing more with less, employees hear threat, not opportunity. People are far less likely to trust AI if they do not trust leadership's intentions behind it. Reassurance cannot come from policy alone, it has to come from behavior.

That starts with a considered view towards building fluency among teams. This is where leadership is responsible for showing employees how AI works in their own roles. Where employees don’t have a clear understanding of how and where they can integrate AI into their workflows, it’s only natural that they will fill this gap with doubt.

Adoption sticks when leaders provide clear guardrails, responsible training and practical examples so AI feels like a technology that amplifies their skills, rather than a threat.

Redesigning roles, not just adding tools

AI adoption cannot succeed if users' roles don’t evolve at the same pace. If people are operating differently to maximize the gains of AI, their individual job scopes can’t be static.

The most effective leaders are proactively redesigning responsibilities to remove low-value drudgery and focus their teams on interpretation, creativity and judgement.

This looks different depending on the business function. In a customer success team, the role must evolve beyond reactive post-sales support, because that wastes the additional business intelligence that AI can deliver. Leaders must recognize that CSMs can do so much more when aided by AI, and reshape their roles so they act as strategic revenue architects.

Using AI to build expertise on specific buyer personas, they can ask sharper, more consultative questions to anticipate their needs and solve problems before a customer realizes they exist. That is a genuine restructuring of the role, not a superficial rebrand.

On the sales side, AI is transforming how managers coach. Rather than sitting beside a rep on a call and writing notes (with all the unconscious bias that can bring), managers can now review an AI-generated brief, apply data-driven scorecards and identify precisely where individuals need support.

They can surface the sales calls where challenging situations were handled best and use real examples as training material. They can see which teams are winning and why, and where processes are breaking down. Coaching stops being as instinctual and subjective and becomes more rooted in data and real outcomes.

What true AI leadership looks like here

While employees might be apprehensive about the implications of AI on their roles, leaders are ultimately being judged on the results their teams drive and moving forward, AI will be a significant multiplier. It’s no longer a question of whether AI can deliver, so the challenge is taking workers on the journey towards understanding how AI will amplify their skills, not replace them.

Encouraging AI adoption in a way that drives real outcomes is one of leaders’ most urgent priorities. Employees do not move from apprehension to agency simply because they are told AI matters. They do it when leaders make the technology understandable, useful and clearly aligned to supporting their roles.

That means demonstrating trust and reshaping how people work, not just demanding that people urgently learn how new tools work.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best HR software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Despite years of artificial intelligence (AI) investment, most customer experiences still remain fragmented, reactive and heavily dependent on disconnected systems behind the scenes.

While 88% of businesses now use AI in at least one function, nearly two-thirds remain stuck in pilot phases, according to McKinsey, highlighting the gap between AI adoption and meaningful operational transformation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have helped businesses create more responsive and personalized interactions, but many organizations are beginning to recognize that conversational AI alone is not enough. As organizations increasingly compete in the experience economy, the focus is shifting toward technologies capable of coordinating actions, workflows and decisions across the entire journey in real time.

That shift is helping drive a new era of agentic customer experience orchestration, where AI systems can move beyond simply responding to requests and instead help execute tasks, resolve issues and coordinate outcomes autonomously across the enterprise.

Large Action Models (LAMs) are emerging as a key part of that transition, helping organizations move beyond conversational intelligence to real-time operational execution.

Moving AI beyond conversation

That shift matters because it fundamentally changes what AI tools can deliver within customer experience.

LLMs brought conversational intelligence into the enterprise, helping AI understand intent and generate more natural interactions. LAMs build on that foundation by turning intent into action: determining the next best steps and executing multi-step workflows in real time, within enterprise-defined guardrails.

Importantly, the rise of LAMs does not signal the end of LLMs. The two technologies work side by side. LLMs remain critical for conversational understanding and contextual reasoning, while LAMs connect that intelligence to coordinated action. This moves AI beyond simply responding to requests, toward orchestrating outcomes across the customer journey.

For example, take a disrupted airline journey in peak holiday season. Until now, even advanced AI agents could usually only explain the delay or point customers toward another support channel.

Agentic virtual agents built by LAMs change that dynamic entirely. These virtual agents can authenticate the customer, rebook flights, update seating, process compensation, coordinate workflows across systems, and proactively send updates before the customer even asks.

That’s the real transformation taking place today: moving from AI that generates responses, to AI that helps orchestrate meaningful outcomes for customers.

The shift toward agentic orchestration

This marks the beginning of a broader shift toward autonomous customer experience driven by agentic orchestration. As AI systems become increasingly capable of reasoning and acting across systems, organizations are beginning to rethink the operating model behind customer experience itself.

Most enterprises were not designed to deliver the seamless, proactive and context-aware experiences we all increasingly expect. We believe closing that gap requires a new operating model for customer experience, one built on orchestration rather than isolated automation. One that can connect journeys end-to-end with shared context, continuity and coordinated execution across channels, systems, teams and AI agents.

This shift is particularly significant, because businesses today no longer compete solely on products or services. Increasingly, they compete based on experience.

Historically, organizations often faced a trade-off between operational efficiency and customer empathy. Improving one frequently came at the expense of the other. AI-powered experience orchestration has the potential to fundamentally change that equation by enabling experiences that are simultaneously efficient, proactive, personalized and emotionally intelligent.

We are already beginning to see early examples of this in practice. Utility Warehouse, one of the first organizations to deploy agentic virtual agents powered by LAMs, has used the technology to support complex customer journeys including billing support and service restoration.

By simplifying its experience architecture and better connecting front- and back-office workflows, the company has more than doubled containment rates while improving both customer and employee experiences.

Organizations best-positioned to succeed in the next era of customer experience will be those that are not simply deploying more AI, but those capable of orchestrating intelligent, connected experiences at scale.

Why governance is no longer optional

However, autonomy without governance creates the potential for risk.

Recent headlines of AI agents deleting databases, misinterpreting instructions and operating outside approved parameters have exposed a growing challenge for companies. The more capable AI becomes, the more important trust and accountability are.

Governance can no longer be treated as something layered on after deployment. As AI systems become more capable of reasoning and acting independently, governance must evolve from static policy into operational architecture embedded directly into orchestration layers.

This is where governance-by-design becomes essential. AI systems require enterprise-grade guardrails and clear operational boundaries to ensure autonomous actions remain trusted and aligned to business policies.

We expect open interoperability standards such as Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Agent-to-Agent (A2A) will also play an increasingly important role in enabling responsible agentic orchestration across the enterprise.

MCP is designed to act as a secure connective layer between AI systems, enterprise tools, data and workflows, helping provide the real-time context and controls AI systems need to operate safely and effectively. A2A can enable AI agents to securely communicate, collaborate and coordinate actions across different platforms and systems.

Together, these standards can help create the foundation for multi-agent orchestration, where AI agents and human teams can work together with shared context, governance and operational oversight to deliver more seamless, outcome-driven customer experiences. For organizations scaling agentic AI across customer experience, we believe this trust will increasingly become a competitive differentiator.

Human oversight remains essential As AI becomes more embedded into everyday work – with 36% of people already using AI tools in the workplace in the UK – conversation is shifting from what AI can automate, to where human judgement matters most.

AI is becoming more effective at handling routine and multi-step processes autonomously, but these systems still require human oversight. As AI takes on more operational responsibility, people will continue to play a critical role in designing the systems, handling exceptions, guiding decisions and stepping in during moments that require empathy and nuance.

We expect that balance will become increasingly important as organizations move toward more autonomous customer experiences. The goal is to enable humans and AI to operate as a coordinated system – each contributing where they are most effective.

The next chapter of autonomous customer experience

As competition increasingly shifts toward the experience economy, customer loyalty is shaped less by products or services alone and more by the quality of the overall experience they deliver. The challenge is no longer simply introducing AI into customer experience, but using it to remove friction, coordinate journeys and deliver outcomes more effectively across the enterprise.

LAMs are helping accelerate that transition by enabling AI systems to autonomously take action across workflows, channels and operational processes in real time – moving beyond reactive support toward more proactive and connected customer experiences.

It is vital that organizations can successfully combine AI, people and operations in ways that make experiences feel effortless for customers in order to compete. That ability to orchestrate intelligent, connected experiences that drive outcomes at scale will become a far more important differentiator than AI adoption alone.

We've featured the best AI chatbot for business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

If your head is still spinning from the first episode of Stuart Fails to Save the Universe, I can't say that I blame you.

Not only were we walked through how comic book store owner Stuart managed to break the device that set off the 'multiverse Armageddon' we've since been thrown into, but a huge Big Bang Theory character has already been killed off... in a manner of speaking.

This week, we're going to officially universe jump for the first time. So, when does Stuart Fails to Save the Universe episode 2 arrive on HBO Max?

What time can I watch Stuart Fails to Save the Universe episode 2 on HBO Max?

For US viewers, Stuart Fails to Save the Universe episode 2 will drop on Thursday, July 30 at 6pm PT/ 9pm ET.

Internationally, you're looking out for these timings:

• US – 6pm PT / 9pm ET
• Canada – 6pm PT / 9pm ET
• UK – Friday, July 31 at 2am BST
• India – Friday, July 31 at 6:30am IST
• Singapore – Friday, July 31 at 9am SGT
• Australia – Friday, July 31 at 11am AEDT
• New Zealand – Friday, July 31 at 12pm NZDT

When do new episodes of Stuart Fails to Save the Universe come out?

(Image credit: HBO Max)

New episodes of Stuart Fails to Save the Universe will make landfall every Thursday in the US and on Fridays everywhere else. Here are the all-important dates you need to know about:

• Episode 1: out now
• Episode 2: July 30
• Episode 3: August 6
• Episode 4: August 13
• Episode 5: August 20
• Episode 6: August 27
• Episode 7: September 3
• Episode 8: September 10
• Episode 9: September 17
• Episode 10: September 24

Western labs still build the highest-scoring AI models. But the strongest Chinese alternatives now sit only a few benchmark points behind, while costing up to 100 times less, depending on the model and deployment scenario.

That changes the competitive question. The winner of the AI race may not be the company with the single smartest model, but the ecosystem that makes advanced AI affordable enough to deploy everywhere. That conclusion comes out of an analysis of 33 models from 15 providers, comparing reasoning performance, cost, and deployment control across the current market.

A Six-Point Gap: The Top of the Leaderboard Has Nearly Closed

On GPQA Diamond, a demanding science reasoning benchmark, the leading models remain American,but Chinese labs are no longer a step behind in a separate tier.

They're inside the same competitive band as the leaders. Claude Mythos 5 leads at 94.4%, followed by Gemini 3.1 Pro at 94.3% and Claude Fable 5 at 94%.

But Qwen 3.7 Max already reaches 92.4%, while GLM-5.2 and DeepSeek V4 Pro score 91.2% and 90.1%.

The benchmark scores still favor the West. What they no longer do is fully explain the business decision.

The Number That Matters More: Up to 100x Cheaper

A lower inference cost doesn't just save money on the same workload - it changes what companies can afford to build.

Lower inference costs mean more queries for the same budget, AI deployed across dozens of internal processes rather than a single premium use case, and cheaper support, analysis, and automation. They also make advanced models accessible to startups and mid-market companies that cannot justify frontier pricing.

Part of that price gap reflects a different safety model. Chinese open-weight systems generally come with lighter default guardrails than Western frontier models, so more responsibility for testing, misuse prevention, and compliance moves to the company deploying them.

A model that is slightly weaker but ten or fifty times cheaper can be commercially more competitive than the benchmark leader, because most business applications don't need the last few points of reasoning - they need a cost structure that scales.

This is a binary choice. The market has already split into two layers, and each follows its own logic.

At the bottom is the mass-market layer: classification, support, content generation, and routine business tasks. Here, “good enough” has already won, because users simply do not notice a difference of a few benchmark points, while every CFO notices a price difference of tenfold or more. Chinese open-source models are already taking this layer. Over the past year, the share of American models in OpenRouter traffic fell from roughly 74% to 20%, while Chinese models grew to almost half. By token volume, this is already their market.

At the top is the frontier: complex agentic tasks, coding, and everything where a model performs dozens of steps in a row without human intervention. Here, a small difference in quality compounds with every step, and over a sequence of 50 steps, a couple of percentage points in error rate can become the difference between completing the task and failing. That is why money behaves in the opposite way to traffic: enterprise budgets are concentrating around a few top models. Anthropic now accounts for around 40% of enterprise API spending, largely because of coding and agents. Tokens flow to the cheap models, while dollars flow to the best ones.

So there will not be a classic winner-takes-all outcome like in search. Models do not have a network effect, switching to another one costs almost nothing, and routing between several models is already a standard production architecture. In the end, we will have an oligopoly of a few frontier labs capturing most of the value at the top, and an ocean of cheap commodity models at the bottom capturing most of the volume. And that boundary will keep moving downward: what is frontier today will be commodity a year from now. That is why the value is not in any specific model, but in the speed of iteration and distribution.

And this brings us back to the original idea about regulation. If the West over regulates its own models, it will hand the entire lower layer to China, because for most business tasks, “good enough” is already enough. This is not a hypothesis. It is already visible in the numbers.

That's the real threat facing Western AI companies. The biggest risk is not that China immediately takes the top benchmark spot. It is that the market decides the top spot is no longer worth the premium.

Beyond Price: Open Weights as a Second Advantage

Several of the strongest Chinese models: GLM-5.2, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Qwen3.5 397B among them are released as open weights, meaning companies can run them on their own infrastructure rather than renting access through an API.

That gives businesses more control over their own data, less dependence on a single vendor's pricing or policy changes, and the ability to adapt a model's behavior to their own needs.

Chinese labs are not only offering cheaper versions of Western products. They are competing with a different model of adoption, built around lower cost, openness, and control — one that appeals directly to companies wary of vendor lock-in.

That debate has now moved into Washington. In a recent open letter, leaders including Satya Nadella and Jensen Huang argued against restrictions on open AI models, warning that limiting their development could weaken US competitiveness.

When the heads of the world’s most valuable companies all defend something at the same time, the first question is always about money. Open models benefit Nvidia because it sells the hardware to everyone who runs them. It is telling that OpenAI and Anthropic, whose businesses depend on closed models, did not sign the letter at first, and OpenAI joined only after its absence became the main story. Everyone here is defending their own business model, and that is normal. It just should not be confused with concern for humanity.

But on the substance, the signatories are right. This is the same story as open source. Giving software away for free once seemed irrational, and then Linux became the foundation of the entire internet. Closed and open models will coexist, each in its own segment. The more open models there are, the more competition there is, the cheaper the technology becomes, and the faster the entire industry moves.

The real context of this letter is not philosophy, but Washington’s attempt to restrict Chinese open models that have moved close to the frontier.

Why This Pressures Western Labs

None of this means OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google are losing the AI race. Their models still lead on raw capability.

But that lead is becoming harder to monetize across every workload. As cheaper alternatives get close enough for routine business use, Western labs will face more pressure to defend premium pricing task by task rather than relying on benchmark leadership alone.

Six Topics Chinese Models Won't Touch the Same Way

But the same models that offer more economic and technical freedom come with a different kind of constraint. Technical openness doesn't mean political neutrality.

Chinese models can offer more infrastructure control while remaining more politically constrained on China-related topics: Tiananmen Square and 1989, Taiwan's status, Xinjiang and the treatment of Uyghurs, the Hong Kong protests, criticism of Xi Jinping, and even politically sensitive references such as Winnie the Pooh.

Responses may be refused, redirected, or framed in line with the official Chinese position. This operates on two levels: a live filter on the hosted API, and a deeper alignment trained into the model itself, which survives even when a company runs the model on its own servers.

Enkrypt AI found that roughly 91% of DeepSeek R1's responses on China-related controversies still leaned pro-Beijing after standard jailbreak attempts. Self-hosting can provide data sovereignty, but it does not automatically create political neutrality.

What Decides the Next Phase

The West still leads on maximum capability. The next phase of the AI race will not be decided by a few benchmark points alone. It will be decided by which ecosystem can turn advanced intelligence into affordable, scalable infrastructure for the wider market.

China has built a serious advantage on cost and control, but companies adopting that infrastructure will also need to account for its political constraints.

Microsoft has been one of the latest to put an estimated timeline on the arrival of a commercially viable quantum computer, predicting it will be as early as 2029. For businesses, that’s as little as ten quarterly board meetings away.

Every new prediction reignites debate about when Q-Day will finally arrive, but what’s more pressing is the preparation window it gives businesses.

Quantum readiness is not something organizations can achieve overnight. By the time a cryptographically relevant quantum computer arrives, businesses will already need to have identified vulnerable systems, mapped critical data and begun their migration. Q-day isn’t when preparation starts, it’s when preparation will be judged.

Treating quantum as tomorrow’s problem risks repeating a mistake many organizations made with Y2K. Boards need to recognize it as a critical business risk. The debate about timelines is a distraction we cannot afford when we know there may already be adversaries out there collecting data to decrypt at a later date.

How trust in business data could be swept away overnight

For long lived data - such as financial records, intellectual property or identity data - the risk doesn’t just begin when a quantum computer is able to break today’s encryption. The risk already exists through ‘harvest now, decrypt later’ attacks, where adversaries collect encrypted data today with the intention of decrypting it once sufficiently powerful and viable quantum computers become available.

Many businesses brush off this potential risk for one of two reasons. Some assume that even if encrypted data is being harvested, the sheer volume involved limits the threat. But what they might not have considered is the power of AI and quantum working together.

AI has made it possible to sift through terabytes of data almost instantly, helping to identify high-value information at scale. And that’s exactly what bad actors will do once quantum is available to break the encryption.

Others assume they’re not at risk because they have little long-lived data worth stealing. Yet the impact of a compromise will extend beyond the exposed information itself. Once the integrity of data is brought into question, confidence in the systems, contracts, transactions and even the intellectual property built on that data will quickly erode. At that point, the issue becomes a loss of trust.

Why risk doesn’t only fall on the shoulders of the CISO

For many boards, quantum security still sounds like a specialist technology challenge. In reality, it’s a leadership one that touches governance, resilience, compliance and corporate accountability.

The consequences extend as far as regulatory exposure, supplier risk, customer trust, operational resilience and ultimately, confidence in the data underpinning strategic decisions and AI models that many businesses are built on. If sensitive information can no longer be trusted, neither can the decisions, transactions or services built upon it.

As organizations invest heavily in AI tools and automation, trust in data has become a business asset in its own right.

That is why quantum readiness cannot sit solely with the CISO. Security teams play a critical role in identifying exposure and planning migration, but accountability for long-term resilience ultimately rests with leadership.

Good governance means staying ahead of material risks before they become urgent. Delaying PQC migration is one of the most significant technology risks of the decade and boards that act now will be able to demonstrate exactly how important it will be to the future security of an enterprise.

Why migration will start paying dividends now

One reason organizations and business leaders underestimate the challenge ahead is the assumption that quantum readiness simply means replacing one encryption algorithm for another. In reality, cryptographic systems are highly interconnected, meaning changing one component often has implications elsewhere.

Before any organization can claim to be quantum ready, it must understand and have full visibility of its entire cryptographic estate. That includes where encryption is used, how systems interact and therefore which assets would be affected by change. Without that knowledge, it’s impossible to plan an effective migration strategy.

While the journey to quantum readiness isn’t a quick one, the process delivers immediate value. Mapping cryptographic dependencies often reveals existing security weaknesses and governance gaps that organizations can and must address today.

So in many cases, the work required to prepare for quantum threats also strengthens resilience against current ones, offering businesses ROI far quicker than many might expect.

What should boards be doing now?

Boards don’t need to become cryptographers overnight, but they do need to start asking better questions and accept that quantum security is a present-day issue.

They should be asking the right questions of the right people. This includes:

• Who is leading our quantum readiness strategy across the business?
• Do we know how to identify where we are most exposed throughout supply chains?
• Which of our data assets would still be sensitive if exposed in ten or twenty years’ time?
• Where do we rely on cryptography across the organization?
• Do we have a plan for identifying and replacing vulnerable systems and supplier dependencies?
• Do we understand the difference in cost, complexity, competitive position and reputational risk between starting today versus waiting until 2029?

Organizations on the front foot will be the ones that use this warning period to understand their exposure and modernize their cryptography, putting them in a position where they can prove they took reasonable action while they still had time.

The good news is that getting started on PQC migration is much easier than boards may realize. The first step is mapping the business’ entire cryptographic estate. And more than a future investment, this will help to identify current vulnerabilities, too.

The important thing is taking the first step sooner rather than later, as it is a long process that won’t happen overnight. The question boards should be asking themselves now is, “if quantum arrived tomorrow, what would it expose about your organization?”. If leadership can’t answer that with confidence today, then there’s work to be done.

We've featured the best firewall software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

The B2B sales process has transformed in recent years, spurred on by agentic AI developments.

These always-on systems identify sales cues and act in real-time, alongside automating orchestration and timely cross-business interactions, reducing latency.

Intelligent, critical thinking-led AI debriefs are also helping sales representatives capture customer insight.

In this model, AI underpins a hyper personalized, efficient and timely B2B sales experience which ensures every customer interaction is captured, understood and acted on.

The sales process: why traditional feels transactional

Business-to-business (B2B) sales experience looks and feels dated in this era of hyper personalized consumer selling. Sales representatives continue to record information within CRM platforms after any customer or prospect interaction, but this traditional method means that depth of information is limited to customer names, key dates, completed sales and other basic details.

This process ends up lacking the depth of the human touch and judgement, meaning the result is transactional and functional, and not always successful.

On top of this, deals take months to close, requiring input from multiple decision-makers and internal stakeholders. Sales representatives have to rely on memory and interpretation of previous interactions and also spend hours updating the wider business teams, coordinating activity and chasing for vital updates.

Often, elements of the customer experience, such as delays in delivery or incomplete orders, which directly influence the current relationship and future sales, are often not communicated down the line.

Agentic AI is changing this. Instead of relying on fragmented information and manual coordination, agentic AI presents businesses with an intelligence-led model that supports faster, more informed customer engagement.

How agentic AI is switching on customer engagement

To truly succeed in B2B sales, there must be effective collaboration throughout the business to allow rapid recognition of buying signals and swift, personalized responses. Agentic AI is switched on, constantly monitoring for these signals by tracking product usage, highlighting billing friction, checking email sentiment and, critically, prioritizing these events and orchestrating the response.

By creating quotes, sending updates to colleagues and generating prompts to help B2B revenue teams engage more effectively, agentic AI also plays a critical role in transforming productivity. By automating these tasks, representatives are free to focus on providing a more personalized customer experience, alongside improving the overall timeliness of decision-making and enhancing engagement and outcomes.

The technology can also initiate routine debriefs. Automating this after every sales visit enables the seamless capture of nuance, human judgement and subtle sales cues, for example: colleagues who may influence the decision, customer business issues that will impact the timeline or a billing dispute. All of this information would have likely been missed previously.

The agentic AI also then drives action forward, for example, triggering a pre-brief ahead of the renewal call and creating a customer-ready response and automatic update of the sales forecast in the case of a billing dispute.

It’s time to transform sales performance

Clearly, agentic AI has the potential to completely transform sales performance, capturing and contextualizing every customer interaction and empowering representatives to be more productive and successful. To achieve this, data from across the business must be structured, enriched and pulled together so that it can detect signals, prompt the correct actions and allow the business to make smarter, more timely decisions.

However, technology and the right data alone isn’t enough to ensure success. In fact, recent research has highlighted that agentic AI projects have a high failure rate, with over 40% expected to be cancelled by the end of 2027. But what is the cause for this?

To create a successful agentic AI tool, it requires complex, ground-up builds that take a significant length of time to deliver, challenging the desired Return on Investment. Instead, many organizations are now turning towards pre-built, subscription-based systems, which are changing this by offering rapid deployment and measurable impact within quarters.

As sales cycles become longer and buying committees become larger, the ability to identify signals, coordinate responses and surface insight in real time becomes increasingly valuable. This value isn’t replacing humans, but rather removing the friction that prevents representatives from selling effectively.

By combining human judgement with automated signal detection, orchestration and insight, agentic AI becomes a foundation for a responsive, personalized and truly successful B2B customer experience.

We've listed the best free CRM software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Beyerdynamic announces new DT 275 Pro wired headphones designed for use in "challenging" and noisy environments thanks to passive noise reduction
• The have a frequency range from 5Hz to 24kHz, and weigh under 200g, so they're nice and portable — and their 45-ohm impedance means they're easy for devices to drive
• They launch on July 28th 2026, and are priced at £99 (about $131 / AU$188) — as a user of Beyedynamic's more expensive headphones, I'm intrigued

Beyerdynamic has launched a new pair of on-ear headphones designed for audio and video professionals in "challenging" and noisy environments, such as live music venues, location recording and mobile production. The DT 275 Pro promise to deliver professional audio and noise isolation without a premium price tag: they're just £99 (about $131 / AU$188).

I'm a big fan of Beyerdynamics' studio headphones, so much so that they're my go-to for recording, mixing and mastering music (TechRadar's Audio Editor Becky Scarrott loved the Beyerdynamic DT 72 IE earbuds), but I don't have to do any of my music-making things on location or in noisy environments, and these new closed-back headphones have been designed for exactly that.

Beyerdynamic DT 275 Pro: key features and specs

The Beyerdynamic DT 275 Pro have an impedance of 45 ohms, making them easy to drive, and they have a quoted frequency range of 5Hz to 24kHz.

Maximum sound pressure is 125dB SPL, and they reduce ambient noise by a claimed 22dBA thanks to their closed-back, on-ear design.

Despite the slightly chunky appearance, these headphones come in just under 200g, so they should be comfortable for long shifts, and the supplied cable can be attached to the left or right ear cup and locked into place. The cable is 1.5m (4.9 feet).

The rotatable ear cups are made from sweat-resistant leatherette, which makes sense for mobile working — the velvety material used in many of the firm's studio headphone earcups isn't something you'd want to have on your head in the heat of a venue or club.

(Image credit: Beyerdynamic)

And key components such as the cup cushions are replaceable so the headphones should remain hygienic and last for a long time.

These are very much a niche product, so if you don't need the isolation and toughness I'd recommend one of the more indoor DT Pro pairs.

But if you need accurate audio when you're out and about, in a venue or on location these look like they'll be just the job — and for far less than you'd expect to pay for pro headphones that I use.

The Beyerdynamic DT 275 Pro will be available from 28 July 2026 with a list price of £99.99 / €119.00 (about $131 / AU$188).

It is widely accepted that technology investment is a key driver of innovation and productivity, with businesses of all sizes striving to achieve the optimal balance between modernizing their IT infrastructure with day-to-day operational priorities.

This can be a challenge and is exacerbated by the pressure to spend on AI. Organizations need to approach their IT modernization strategy in a measured way, as unfettered AI spend does not automatically equate to effective progress.

Recent industry research from Deloitte highlights the profound impact that the AI boom is having on technology investment decisions. AI is commanding a growing share of IT budgets, with 74% of organizations prioritizing investment into these areas well above other IT fundamentals such as data management, cloud platforms and enterprise resource planning.

Inevitably this raises some questions about how businesses are approaching their technology investments. With limited budgets, there are concerns that organizations are pursuing AI at a cost to operational necessities. It also highlights how IT strategies may not align fully with business objectives.

The global climate of economic uncertainty and geopolitical change has also compounded these issues. Decision making is more complex and budgets are more stretched than ever before, making it tough for any organization to implement an effective IT transformation.

Why modernization is a fine balance

In reality, it is not a viable option for the majority of organizations to modernize their entire IT infrastructure and systems in one go. Quite simply, this would be too costly and too disruptive to business operations. Instead, organizations most often opt for a more pragmatic, gradual approach that modernizes IT in planned phases.

Taking this path enables any organization to extend the life of its existing infrastructure, integrating new technologies and platforms with legacy IT along the way.

However, one of the pitfalls of this is when businesses want to add new AI technologies. They find that they are not ready to support these in terms of operational maturity or data reliability and are ill-prepared to innovate as and when needed.

This poses the question about how organizations should balance spending on phased technology replacement with achieving predictable long-term value to business operations. Front of mind for businesses is that operational efficiency is a necessity for successful and timely innovation that will stand the test of time, less so a focus on constant technology replacement.

Mitigate against pricing unpredictability

For IT leaders, while pricing concerns are in the spotlight, it is overall cost unpredictability that truly impacts innovation efforts.

Licensing models, support options and hardware pricing can change overnight, so those organizations that reduce their exposure to sudden cost hikes and have kept their options open are in a much stronger position to navigate through these scenarios and continue on their IT investment pathway.

It is not uncommon now for organizations to choose shorter term agreements or more versatile deployment paths. This might increase spending in the near term, but reduces valuable longer-term risk. Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware in the virtualization market demonstrates this point.

With major changes to areas including licensing models and pricing, this spurred many IT leaders to reassess their infrastructure strategy for the longer term.

Together, these considerations are impacting decision-making about infrastructure, and the in-depth investment planning that goes hand in hand with this. This might mean more focus on evidence-driven technology purchasing, more rigorous cases to support ROI and long-term cost exposure before senior leaders sign off on any modernization projects.

Innovation is not purely about technical ambition

Under closer scrutiny, it is no surprise that organizations are becoming more wary of setting false hopes with transformation initiatives, or large-scale replacement projects. Historically these were built on optimistic longer-term assumptions and a stable global economic climate, with little requirement to ensure that business cases were based on thorough due diligence.

Not so now. While the world’s businesses continue to innovate, there has clearly been a shift in mindset about how businesses are modernizing and the way that they are reaching longer-term goals.

Decisions are less driven by sheer technical ambition, and are more firmly grounded in risk mitigation, business resilience and financial predictability. All of these help to lay solid foundations for any new implementation more dependably than blue sky thinking.

Overall, the organizations reaping the most reward in the next three to five years will be those that modernize sustainably while managing stability in core operations combined with careful budget management. Incremental IT modernization is a highly practical approach that allows innovation at the same time as minimizing disruption and the risk of cost spirals.

In a temperamental technology market with no certain change on the horizon, the businesses that understand the inextricable link between innovation and financial discipline, and apply this fast to their modernization strategies, will be the ones most set up for future success.

We've featured the best AI tool.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

The summer holidays are here, but for most of us, that doesn’t mean work stops.

Despite booking multiple days off and roping in anyone I can help with childcare, it is inevitable that, at various points over the next six weeks, the kids will be cooped up in my office with me while I try to work.

As someone who likes to plan, I’ve already invested in several items to help keep my little ones happy and occupied whilst I keep serving up insightful content on small business tech.

I’m keen to provide them with retro-style pastimes and give them some options that get them creative and active, without creating too much noise. That said, I am already eyeing up a £300+ gaming console to get myself some quiet time – and it’s only week two (it's all about balance, right?)

Below you'll find the list of products I'm using, or planning to use, to survive the summer holidays. Half are under £20, with the rest requiring a bit more of an investment.

Of course, there is still a chance that by week six, you'll find me in the playpen playing Pokémon whilst my kids run riot.

Under £20

Silvine A4+ Classic Scrapbook

Pritt Glue Sticks

MACMILLAN The Gruffalo and Friends: Amazing Animals Sticker Book

CiaraQ Air Dry Clay

Daimeitec Catching Sticks Game

EarFun Kids Headphones Wireless

JOYIN Rock Painting Kit for Kids

Kiztoys 26 Inches Kids Dart Board Set

Over £20 (but worth it)

Amazon Fire HD 10 Kids Pro Tablet

Nintendo Switch 2 Console

Neuro Wiz Balance Board for Kids

Gupamiga Playpen

Hot Wheels Stunt and Go Transporter Truck

Heromask VR Headset for Kids 5-12

Gemmicc Magnetic Tiles

Logicraft Smart Playpal 17-In-1 Screen-Free Electronic Handheld Game

As a keen fitness junkie who likes to keep track of my runs and cycles, I was amazed to learn that Amazfit finally officially launched in Australia earlier this month by way of an Amazon AU storefront. The brand specialises in fitness trackers and wearables, and looks to challenge the likes of Garmin, Apple, Samsung and Google with its budget-friendly models that have excellent health tracking.

While the launch headlined its newest Amazfit Active 3 Premium and the Helio Strap — a screenless wearable taking aim at the Fitbit Air and Garmin Cirqa — Amazon has discounted a couple of older Amazfit models for a limited time, making them even more affordable.

The Amazfit Active 2 is my top pick, and is currently 20% off, bringing the price down to justAU$159.20. Even at full price it was a great buy, but this discount makes the already affordable smartwatch even more enticing.

Our Amazfit Active 2 review gave the watch a perfect 5 stars thanks to its classic design, excellent health tracking and 10-day battery life. We’ve also named the Active 2 the best overall cheap smartwatch, beating out the likes of the Apple Watch SE 3 and the Garmin Forerunner 165. Be quick, as there are only a few hours left before the deal ends tonight.View Deal

For less than AU$160, you’ll be getting a 1.32-inch AMOLED screen with 2,000 nits max brightness, downloadable maps, 160-plus workout modes, an AI coach, a heart health tracker, a cycle tracker and nutrition tracking, to name a few. There’s also voice control and message replies, which you can’t find in most Garmin watches.

Our reviewer said they were “frankly astounded” at the amount of features in the Active 2 considering its price, even saying it’s impressive for a smartwatch of any price tag, let alone one with an RRP of less than AU$200. Features like ECG and on-device GPS were highlighted as standout features that are usually found in pricier watches.The review also praised the Amazfit Active 2’s classic stainless steel design that looks more subtle and understated compared to other smartwatches, although they found the fit of the leather strap wasn’t perfect.

One nitpick they had was the absence of NFC for on-device card payments via Zepp Pay, as the feature is only available in the Amazfit Active 2 Premium model, but that’s hardly a complaint for something this affordable — especially with this discount.

Want something even cheaper? The 4-star Amazfit Bip 6 is also discounted at AU$103.20.