Technology

Google Play will open catalog access to third-party US Android app stores on July 22, following a court order tied to Epic Games’ antitrust case.

The post Google’s Android App Store Shake-Up Starts July 22 appeared first on TechRepublic.

SpaceXAI open-sourced Grok Build under Apache 2.0 after privacy backlash over broad directory uploads from its terminal AI coding agent.

The post SpaceXAI Open-Sources Grok Build After Privacy Backlash appeared first on TechRepublic.

Samsung has clarified that withdrawing consent for Health AI training removes only data collected for AI development, not users’ existing health records or syncing access.

The post Samsung Says Health AI Opt-Out Will Not Delete User Records appeared first on TechRepublic.

OpenAI is reportedly developing a portable screenless AI speaker with cameras, sensors, GPT-Live, and moving parts.

The post OpenAI’s First Device Explained: Everything We Know About the Screenless AI Speaker appeared first on TechRepublic.

Creep out the neighborhood kids with this cool upgrade to one of the most popular holiday haunts around.

Researchers say a Claude for Chrome flaw lets rogue extensions trigger Gmail, Docs, and Calendar tasks, with greater risk in unattended mode.

The post Claude for Chrome Flaw Puts Gmail at Risk From Rogue Extensions appeared first on TechRepublic.

The new prequel series is currently in production for Starz.

NotebookLM gets a new name and expanded access to native code writing features.

Everything we've heard about what the new Pixel 11 phones look like, new prices and more storage than last year.

European authorities dismantled the VPN service in May following a yearslong investigation.

The UK has begun direct oversight of systemic cloud services used by financial firms, while banks remain responsible for their own operational resilience, contracts, and recovery planning.

The post UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight appeared first on TechRepublic.

In the summer of 1995, the future of computing briefly seemed to belong to Netscape.

Netscape went public that August, barely sixteen months after it had been founded. Its stock doubled on the first day. The company had no empire of hardware, no installed operating system, no grip on the office desktop. What it had was a window into a new world.

Open Navigator, type an address, and the Internet appeared with a little throb of electricity. The browser did not feel like an application. It felt like a passage out of Microsoft's world.

Microsoft noticed.

The battle that followed was called the browser wars, a phrase that makes it sound tidier than it was. Really, it was a fight over who had the right to stand between the user and the next era of computing.

Netscape believed the browser would make the operating system less important. Microsoft believed that anything capable of making Windows less important needed to become part of Windows, preferably yesterday.

By the end of the decade, the company that had introduced so many people to the Web was no longer the Web's gatekeeper. It had been out-distributed, out-bundled, and finally absorbed into a stranger corporate afterlife.

A familiar temptation

There is a familiar temptation now to ask which artificial intelligence company is "the Netscape of AI." The answer usually offered is OpenAI, and the comparison is not wrong. ChatGPT did for artificial intelligence what Navigator did for the Web. It turned a technical architecture into a public experience. It gave the future a text box.

But the more important question is this: Who is today's Microsoft? Who understands that the winner is often the company that owns the default?

Every platform shift begins with a miracle and ends with a map of choke points. The miracle is what users remember. The choke points are where the money goes.

The early Web was sold as an escape from gatekeepers. It created new ones. Search. Browsers. Marketplaces. Mobile operating systems. Cloud platforms. Social media. The AI era is being sold with the same democratic glow.

And yet the deeper stack is already hardening. It is made of chips, power contracts, data centers, model weights, enterprise identity, workflow data, cloud credits, procurement channels, and the small tyrannies of default settings. The romance is in the chatbot. The control is somewhere colder, louder, and much more expensive.

That was true in the nineties, too. The Web looked like a page. The winners understood it was a stack.

The danger to OpenAI

OpenAI is the obvious Netscape figure because it supplied the first mass-market revelation. Before ChatGPT, artificial intelligence was a research field, a back-office tool, or a phrase executives used when they meant analytics with a larger budget. After ChatGPT, it was something anyone could talk to.

People underrate the power of the first interface that makes a new technology feel inevitable. Netscape did not invent the Internet. It made the Internet feel reachable. OpenAI did not invent the transformer. It made the transformer feel conversational.

But Netscape's story is not a founder myth. It is a warning label.

Netscape had the user's excitement but not enough control over distribution. Microsoft had the operating system. It could place Internet Explorer where users already lived. It could make the browser free. It could turn a product category into a feature.

The lesson was simple: if your rival owns the layer beneath you, your brilliance may become their menu option.

OpenAI is better protected than Netscape was, but not safely protected. It has a huge brand, astonishing usage, and deep ties to Microsoft. It also has the curse of being expensive in a way software companies used to avoid. Each improvement requires compute, chips, talent, energy, and capital. The old software dream was scaling with almost no marginal cost. AI can't do that.

That is why OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft is both strength and vulnerability. Microsoft gives it cloud computing infrastructure, enterprise access, and capital. Microsoft also sits close enough to learn from it, package it, hedge around it, and sell AI into the places where people already do work.

If Netscape's problem was that Microsoft stood underneath it, OpenAI's problem is subtler: Microsoft stands underneath it, beside it, and increasingly in front of the customer.

Netscape had the dazzling demo. Yahoo had the traffic. AOL had the subscribers. None of that was enough. The durable winners were the companies that turned their software layers into a control point and a tollbooth.

Nvidia may be doing exactly that.

The rise of Nvidia

In the nineties, Intel was the metronome inside the personal-computer boom. Microsoft owned the software platform. Intel owned the pace of the machine.

Nvidia occupies a similar place in AI, but the analogy understates the ambition. Nvidia is not merely selling chips into a boom. It is selling the industrial base of the boom: GPUs, networking, software libraries, developer habits, and a vision of the data center as an AI factory.

Every major AI player is both Nvidia customer and Nvidia escape artist. Google has TPUs. Amazon has Trainium. Microsoft is developing its own silicon. Everyone wants an alternative. The problem is that wanting one does not create an ecosystem.

Nvidia's position today may be the purest example of moving up the stack from below. A chip company becomes a systems company. A systems company becomes a software company. A software company becomes a developer environment. A developer environment becomes a tax on ambition.

For now, Nvidia is the toll collector.

The AI market will not resolve into one winner. Platform shifts rarely do. The Web did not produce one winner. It produced layers of power. Microsoft kept the desktop. Google won search. Amazon won commerce and cloud. Apple won mobile hardware and the app economy. Meta won social attention.

AI will do the same.

Microsoft may become the default enterprise AI company, not because every Copilot is brilliant, but because Microsoft sits where work already happens. Nvidia may remain the dominant compute toll collector. Amazon will likely win much of the infrastructure layer. Google must reinvent search while defending it. Meta will use AI to extend attention. Apple may yet turn personal AI into a device-native experience.

The likely losers are the companies attached to the wrong layer.

The changing landscape of AI

In the nineties, AOL looked invincible because it owned access. Broadband made that access less special. Yahoo looked inevitable because it owned attention. Search made that attention less decisive. Netscape looked revolutionary because it owned the browser. Microsoft made the browser a dependency of the operating system.

In AI, the same demotions will happen. Some model companies will become features. Some application companies will become demos. Some incumbents will decorate old products with AI and call it transformation, which is the corporate version of putting a spoiler on a minivan.

The mistake, in every technological boom, is to confuse the moment of wonder with the arrangement of power that follows it.

The wonder is sincere. The arrangement is not.

The early Web made people feel as if they had slipped the old gatekeepers. Then came the search box, the app store, the marketplace, the cloud account, the login, the subscription, the default. Each solved a real inconvenience. Each left behind a narrower path.

AI will likely travel the same road, only faster and with a larger electricity bill. It will begin as a conversation and mature into an administrative system for human intention: what we ask, what we buy, what we write, whom we trust, which choices are shown, and which never quite appear.

The future does not usually arrive wearing chains. It arrives offering to save time.

We've tested, reviewed, and ranked the best business cloud storage services.

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

• Zoom patches critical improper input validation flaw in multiple Windows clients and SDKs that allowed remote account takeover
• Additional high‑severity bugs fixed include CVE‑2026‑53410 (TOCTOU race condition), CVE‑2026‑53409 (privilege management flaw), and CVE‑2026‑53411 (input validation issue)
• All vulnerabilities were found internally, with no evidence of exploitation; users are urged to update Zoom Workplace and related products to the latest versions

Zoom has patched a critical-level vulnerability in multiple products that allowed threat actors to take over people’s accounts remotely.

In a security advisory, Zoom said it fixed an Improper Input Validation bug plaguing Zoom Desktop Client for Windows (before version 7.0.0), Zoom VDI Client for Windows (before versions 7.0.10, 6.6.15, and 6.5.18), and Zoom Meeting SDK for Windows (before version 7.0.0). It did not go into more details on how the flaw works.

The bug is now tracked as CVE-2026-53412, and was given a severity score of 9.8/10 (critical). To fix it, users are advised to update their software to the newest version.

More vulnerabilities

While certainly the most dangerous one, this is not the only bug Zoom recently addressed. The company also fixed a handful of less severe vulnerabilities, including a time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition bug affecting Zoom Workplace for Windows before 7.0.5, Zoom Workplace VDI Client and VDI Plugin before 6.5.17/6.6.14, Zoom Rooms for Windows before 7.0.5, and Remote Control for Zoom Contact Center before 7.0.0. This bug is tracked as CVE-2026-53410 and was given a “high” severity score of 7/10.

Other notable mentions include CVE-2026-53409 (a high-severity improper privilege management flaw in Zoom Rooms for Windows before version 7.1.0), and

CVE-2026-53411 (a high-severity improper input validation flaw affecting the Zoom Workplace VDI Plugin for Windows before version 6.6.14).

Zoom found all of these vulnerabilities in-house and says there is no evidence that any of these were abused in real-life attacks in the past.

Zoom Workplace (the company’s all-in-one collaboration platform) offers video meetings, team chat, phone, email, calendar, scheduling, whiteboards, and other productivity tools. It is an evolution of the original Zoom Meetings app which now competes with platforms such as Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace.

Via BleepingComputer

Intel is reportedly using ASML’s High-NA EUV technology to produce Panther Lake chips, marking a key test of its advanced manufacturing comeback.

The post Panther Lake Gives Intel an Early Lead in High-NA Chipmaking appeared first on TechRepublic.

• Aston Martin just revealed the Dreadnought, a digital-only military SUV designed exclusively for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4
• It features rugged armor plating and a powerful V12 engine
• The vehicle will feature in the game's DMZ mode and the free-to-play Warzone battle royale

Legendary luxury car manufacturer Aston Martin has just revealed the Dreadnought, a heavily armored all-wheel drive SUV said to offer "supercar levels of performance" and "elite tactical performance" on the battlefield.

Its Chiltern Green painted body combines rugged military armor plating with advanced aerodynamics to deliver a powerful combination of both speed and protection, while the interior includes luxury elements like an Oxford Tan leather dashboard and golden gear lever.

Under the hood, it boasts a mammoth V12 engine and comes with a unique range of combat-oriented features such as dedicated weapons storage and reserve fuel tanks.

Its name is intended to conjure images of the HMS Dreadnought, a famous 20th-century British vessel that was so significant it spawned a whole new class of battleship.

Activision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston MartinActivision / Aston Martin

The catch? It's not a vehicle that you will actually be able to buy; it's a digital-only concept that's been designed exclusively for the upcoming video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4.

According to the car maker's chief creative officer, Marek Reichman, designing the vehicle posed a "not inconsiderable challenge" to reimagine what Aston Martin could be in a virtual world where "the only limit is imagination."

Although the car is fictional, Reichman said that it was imagined as "a vehicle living in the real world" throughout the design process, and therefore "feels genuinely real."

You'll be able to go behind the wheel of the Aston Martin Dreadnought in Modern Warfare 4's DMZ mode when the game launches on October 20, 2026. It will also appear in the free-to-play battle royale Call of Duty Warzone.

Fans attending the upcoming Fanatics Fest in New York will be able to see a full-size model of the car in the flesh at the Call of Duty stand.

• The European Union is working on tech repairability rules...
• ... except some 'wet appliances' are now exempt now
• This puts 'devices that are worn on the body' in a very gray area…
• …and yes, that probably means AirPods

E-waste worriers (and warriors) like me have been watching the creation of EU regulations with glee, since a selection of them will require tech manufacturers to put replaceable or repairable batteries in their gadgets. But now, there are a few new key exceptions to the rule.

Some major new clarifications, listed on the European Commission's website, mute the positive impact of replaceable, upgradable tech. These exceptions mean that wearables including smartwatches and fitness trackers don't have to be repairable — and I think it's ironic that these are precisely the kinds of gadgets you're more likely to throw out and replace, rather than try to repair.

The EU has moved these products to its "wet appliances" category, for gadgets which can't be kept repairable for safety reasons (ie, because they deal with water). However, no reason was given for why wearables, especially ones not designed for wet use (based on IP ratings) are now exempt.

While the EU's rule change doesn't actually mention AirPods (or earbuds in general), what the wording essentially means is that wireless earbuds, Apple watches and smart glasses reportedly also fall into this specific wearable category. Smart glasses are, to hammer home the point, really not designed for wet use — but their wearer might get caught in a rainstorm by accident, say.

There are two key pieces of information regarding the classification of small devices exempt from adhering to the EU's battery rules, as published in the recent guidelines. The first is that "Wearable devices are portable electronic devices that are worn on the body and often have sensors and connectivity to collect and transmit data. Examples of wearables include smartwatches, fitness trackers, smart glasses or other electronic devices integrated into clothing and other accessories".

The second? It's to do with those IP ratings for water- and dust ingress and whether the addition of a replaceable battery is "compromising safety". It states that if "there is evidence in the product documentation when placing the product on the market that battery replaceability and removability by end-users would compromise the safety of the user or the appliance", the product may be exempt.

So your AirPods 4 with ANC will likely no longer need to feature replaceable batteries because of the EU, including the case itself.

An Apple a day keeps the e-waste away

(Image credit: Future)

It's no secret that e-waste is a massive issue: according to the United Nations, the amount of discarded electronics we produce is rising five times faster than our ability to recycle it.

It's why the EU recently pushed through rules to ensure tech is repairable. A pair of headphones that break might just need a new battery; you don't need to buy a whole new pair.

Apple users have been begging for removable batteries in iOS devices, especially AirPods, as we argued back in 2024. AirPods are the best-selling earbuds in the world (and it's not even close), so at least some of them end up in landfill when they stop working, despite Apple's conviction to recycle any that get returned to its stores (Apple doesn't offer any trade-in value for AirPods, but dropping them in for recycling is free).

I believe it's important for all tech to be repairable (see B&O's long-running 'Cradle to Cradle' approach, even buying back and refurbing its own kit, to give it a new life), but doubly so for the ubiquitous kind.

Apple's way is of course a viable way to keep your eco credentials, while disposing of unwanted buds, but it's not the best way. That would be replaceable batteries, small and fiddly though it might be — and it is possible, because Fairphone has been doing it for a little while.

As per the mantra drilled into school kids: reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order. Reusing old earbuds, by repairing them, is much better for the environment than recycling them, and so it's a shame that the EU is giving out exemptions like candy.

If you have any broken tech, be it headphones, earbuds or something else entirely, a repair is always your first port of call before disposing of your existing ones. It's cheaper and quicker than buying new tech and, most importantly, is better for the planet. And if you do need to buy new tech, consider online or physical refurb shops such as Back Market, which repair others' gadgets.

• Google, Apple, GitHub sites are inaccessible on Russian IP since July 14
• The state regulator, Roskomnadzor, denies blocking the webistes
• A reliable VPN remains the only way for citizens to bypass outages

Russian internet users found themselves locked out of crucial digital services on Tuesday, as widespread and unexplained outages knocked Google, Apple, and GitHub offline across the country.

The network disruptions, which began around 10:00 Moscow time, prevented anyone using a domestic IP address from reaching the websites. This sudden digital blackout is the latest hurdle for citizens trying to access the open web, making the use of VPN services an absolute necessity rather than just a privacy luxury.

According to data from Russian web monitor platforms Detector404 and Sboy.rf — as reported by Novaya Gazeta — the failure rates were staggering. The tracker noted that HTTPS connections to Google broke in 26% of cases, while connections to Apple sites failed 99% of the time.

The outages sparked over a thousand user complaints within hours, heavily concentrated in regions like Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk. Users quickly discovered that accessing the sites via a foreign IP address completely restored service.

Despite the highly localized nature of the blocks, Russia's telecommunications watchdog, Roskomnadzor, denied any state involvement. In a statement reported by the Moscow Times, the regulator claimed it did not restrict access to the affected platforms.

Regardless of the official explanation, the result is the same: the only way to restore normal access to these everyday platforms is by routing your connection through a secure, foreign server using a Virtual Private Network (VPN).

How a VPN helps and why VPN traffic is the next target

(Image credit: Future + Photo by Maksim Konstantinov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images + Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images )

For anyone caught behind Russia's digital iron curtain, a VPN is a critical lifeline.

By encrypting your internet traffic and routing it through a secure server outside of the country, a VPN masks your real IP address. This effectively tricks the network into thinking you are browsing from a completely different location, allowing you to sidestep domestic censorship and load Google, Apple, or investigative news outlets as normal.

However, the Kremlin is well aware of this workaround, and the censorship landscape in the country is rapidly deteriorating. Russia's ongoing war against the open internet has increasingly zeroed in on the circumvention tools themselves, with Roskomnadzor wanting to block 92% of VPN apps by 2030.

The tactics go far beyond simple website bans. Earlier this year, Russian authorities ordered major mobile operators to disable the ability for users to top up their Apple ID balances via mobile phone accounts. This calculated move was designed specifically to stop citizens from paying for premium VPN apps through the App Store, compounding the payment difficulties created when Visa and Mastercard suspended operations in 2022.

Worse still, VPN traffic itself is now actively targeted. Roskomnadzor has heavily invested in deep packet inspection (DPI) technology to detect and block VPN protocols.

Over the past few months, the agency has throttled popular protocols like WireGuard and VLESS, creating a frustrating cat-and-mouse game for providers trying to keep their users online — the popular Amnezia VPN included.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to use DNS and DPI blocking to restrict YouTube, Telegram, and WhatsApp while aggressively pushing state-controlled alternatives.

As state control tightens, free access to basic tech tools is no longer guaranteed. If you are in the region, securing a tested, obfuscated VPN is the only remaining defense against an increasingly isolated Russian internet.

Artificial intelligence is moving faster than most enterprise governance models were designed to support.

Organizations are rapidly embedding AI into customer operations, internal workflows, decision-making systems, software development, supply chains, analytics, and automation initiatives.

But while adoption accelerates quickly, this creates a situation where accountability is fragmented.

That gap is creating a new category of enterprise risk.

For years, cybersecurity leaders focused on protecting systems, managing threats, and securing data. Today, that already broad mandate is expanding: as AI becomes increasingly embedded across operational environments, CISOs are pulled into broader questions of trust, assurance, resilience, and executive accountability.

A recent best practices report from Forrester noted that “CISOs will be the trust and assurance authority for the business.”

This shift reflects a growing reality: enterprises are increasingly struggling to determine who owns AI risk as decisions become distributed across systems, business functions, and autonomous processes.

Governance Models Are Struggling to Keep Pace

Most enterprise governance structures were designed around the concept of centralized oversight models. Security teams managed cybersecurity risk. Compliance managed regulatory obligations. Operations managed execution. Business leaders managed strategic outcomes. AI disrupts those boundaries.

Today, AI increasingly influences operational decisions across functions. Different tools and models may be used simultaneously for customer interactions, fraud detection, procurement, workforce management, software development, and supply chain operations internally, as well as throughout a vendor or supply chain ecosystem. As a result, visibility is limited and accountability becomes difficult to define.

When disruptions affect legal, privacy, operational, and technology functions simultaneously, many organizations lack a clear view of how those risks intersect.

Most governance frameworks were designed for software that supported decisions. Now, AI increasingly participates in making them.

The Visibility Gap Behind AI Risk

Many organizations still rely on fragmented governance processes, static documentation, spreadsheets, and disconnected reporting workflows to manage environments made even more complex by AI.

AI systems do not operate in isolation. They rely on interconnected data pipelines, third-party models, cloud infrastructure, APIs, operational systems, and business-process dependencies that continuously evolve. When visibility across those dependencies is limited, organizations struggle to understand where AI-driven decisions originate, how they propagate, and what downstream impacts they create.

That visibility gap quickly becomes a resilience problem. If organizations cannot trace how AI-driven actions connect to operational systems and business outcomes, they cannot effectively assess exposure during disruption, validate continuity plans, or demonstrate accountability under pressure.

This is where many organizations discover that AI governance is no longer just a policy challenge. It is an operational resilience challenge that can have customer and financial impact.

Because cybersecurity teams already operate at the intersection of technology risk, resilience, governance, and incident response, many organizations are increasingly looking to CISOs for enterprise-wide trust and assurance.

AI Resilience Requires Operational Context

The conversation around AI governance has centered on ethics frameworks, policies, and regulatory controls, which remain important. But resilience increasingly depends on something more operational: understanding how AI-driven actions affect real business environments during disruption.

That requires organizations to move beyond static governance models toward continuous operational visibility.

Leading organizations are increasingly focusing on questions such as:

• Which business services depend on AI-driven systems?
• What operational processes become vulnerable if AI outputs fail?
• Where do third-party dependencies create downstream exposure?
• How quickly can teams trace AI-driven decisions during an incident?
• Can leaders demonstrate operational accountability in real time?
• Can we revert back to more traditional operating models if an AI agent or capability fails?

Those questions span cybersecurity, resilience, operations, and executive governance. They also represent a broader shift occurring across enterprise risk management itself.

Trust, accountability, and resilience

Organizations are no longer being measured solely by whether governance frameworks exist. Increasingly, they are being judged by whether they can operationally demonstrate trust, accountability, and resilience when complex systems fail under pressure, and AI is accelerating this shift.

The organizations that adapt fastest will not necessarily be the ones deploying the most AI. They will be the ones that can most clearly understand, govern, and recover from the operational consequences AI can create when disruption occurs.

Protect your data with the best password manager.

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

You can tour its prime locations, such as Mount Roku, or explore odder sites, including the Isle of Roku.

• Microsoft sees itself as cheaper and more effective at bundling the full stack
• The company is clearly pushing its own internal models
• Claude also slated for being slower and less accurate

Microsoft is reportedly teaching sales workers how to compare the company's AI offerings to rival companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.

Per Bloomberg reporting, the company's sales staff are being told to emphasize benefits like efficiency and cost advantages when using Microsoft's offerings, which offer a much fuller picture than just the models and tools, extending to compute and other workflow tools.

"Everyone else is selling parts – we’re selling the full end-to-end system," EVP Jay Parikh reportedly told workers. "That’s the story that we all need to get out there and tell in FY27."

Microsoft sales teams up the ante against OpenAI, Anthropic

Clearly, the company wants customers to see the combination of its own models and third-party models, cloud infrastructure, applications and security as better value compared with having to piece these elements together separately.

Copilot EVP Jacob Andreou also reportedly compared Copilot to Claude, accusing Claude of being slower, less accurate and missing certain security integrations.

The sales push comes at a time of change for the company, which has started to push more of its own internal models across different apps and workflows to replace OpenAI and Anthropic models. It's also a marked shift from the company's earlier AI strategy, which leaned heavily on its multibillion-dollar partnership with OpenAI.

Company CEO Satya Nadella also pointed at a major customer, Unilever, which recently switched form an unnamed frontier model to one of Microsoft's own cheaper models to make significant savings.

In April, the company announced that its AI business is now worth around $37 billion annually, marking a 123% year-over-year increase.