Technology

The iPhone Duo costs $700 more than the iPhone 18 Pro Max. Here’s where that premium shows up — and where the Pro Max still holds an edge.

The post iPhone Duo vs iPhone 18 Pro Max: The $700 Gap Isn’t Just About the Fold appeared first on TechRepublic.

You will almost certainly have heard many business and technology leaders extolling the virtue of AI. They will enthusiastically tell you that the technology will have a transformative impact on businesses across the globe.

I think they are right. However, with two important caveats: AI must be given the right jobs, and the people using it must trust what it does.

Too often, AI is deployed across a business without much thought, as overconfident bosses assign agents tasks it isn't designed for. The problem this creates is that many employees using AI tools every day are not yet prepared for their new role in managing these agents. Trust only comes from experience and that builds over time.

When an AI system provides you with results that make sense and actually helps with your work, people start to feel more confident in using it. But if it makes a mistake, that confidence can be lost in an instant. If things go wrong, employees start finding ways around AI or stop using it altogether, and when leaders ignore employee concerns about making AI work better, its benefits are undermined.

The best way to ensure that AI delivers the efficiencies it promises is to ensure that it is doing the right job, and this isn't as straightforward as it sounds.

The areas where AI excels

AI works on probabilities, producing answers that are likely to be right. The key word here is ‘likely', which is why it occasionally hallucinates.

Being probabilistic makes AI very effective when dealing with unclear or complicated information. But it's not the best fit for tasks where a wrong answer could have serious consequences.

There are three core areas where AI really can make a difference. Firstly, when processing documents; secondly, decision support; and finally, personalization.

AI is especially effective at tasks involving many documents. It can extract, classify and summarize information that would normally take humans many hours to review. For example, an AI system could compare contracts against a standard set of clauses, or organize a large collection of customer emails by the issues they concern. This way, a person only has to look at the important findings instead of reviewing entire documents.

AI can also play a key role in supporting company executives to make decisions, as it's very good at taking lots of different pieces of information, finding patterns and delivering options as to what to do next.

It is, however, important to remember that AI is not always the right technology to make that decision. For example, imagine you're buying something and have to choose among many different suppliers.

AI can look at all the information, like how well they've done in the past, what they can deliver, how quickly it is likely to arrive and whether the supplier offers discounts for repeat purchases. It can even articulate why one option might be better than another. In most scenarios, though, it is the human who makes the final choice.

For some businesses, personalization is a promising tool, as AI can be used to make products more relevant to the individual using them. This is an area where working with probabilities can become a key driver for AI. The content only has to be good enough to make that connection so the recipient feels they are being addressed in a bespoke way.

The cost of assigning AI the wrong job

One of the key concerns companies should have about managing AI is that while AI-generated answers can sound assured, there is still a possibility that the technology has got something wrong. If that answer is allowed to trigger action without validation, a small error can travel rapidly through a workflow.

Think about what happens when someone makes a small mistake with a rule or detail in a contract. By the time someone catches the error, it may have already been added to records, sent to people outside the company, or even used to create new software.

To remind myself of AI’s limitations, I find it useful to think of the technology as the equivalent of a super-intelligent, hard-working intern. Interns need guidance and oversight, which should be provided by experienced, knowledgeable colleagues. Crucially, their access to sensitive information needs to be limited and granted only as they demonstrate they can make sound decisions.

AI needs to be managed in the same way. It should only be given greater levels of control when it has proved itself, and then its work must still be monitored by humans.

A good example of the importance of managing AI is its role in software development. AI can deliver a lot of code quickly, but its fast pace means the quality isn't always the same as that of human developers.

In fact, managing large amounts of AI-generated code can be a real headache for IT professionals. For example, surging token consumption and a shift to consumption-based pricing is ballooning AI coding costs, forcing developers to be selective on when and where they apply AI models, as reported by Gartner.

Let AI help design the model, not control the machinery

The most important design decision is where AI is allowed to reason. The riskiest place is deep in the implementation layer, where a small mistake can cause big problems that are hard to fix.

I believe a sound approach is to use AI to work with business ideas and rules. This way, it's easier for people to check and understand what the AI is suggesting.

Domain-specific languages and other abstractions used in model-driven development can provide that separation. AI helps create or refine a high-level application model, while a developer then validates the model before a deterministic platform transforms it into executable software.

AI can suggest how something should be done, but it doesn't have to be responsible for executing every step.

Abstraction helps developers, and in agent-driven systems it becomes a control tool. It simplifies complex systems and prevents small errors from becoming big problems, making AI output easier to test and fix.

Human expertise is becoming more valuable, not less

As AI becomes more prevalent, developers' roles will evolve. They will still write code, but a larger part of their role will be overseeing systems, checking outputs and catching mistakes, a change that brings with it the opportunity to learn new skills.

Developers will increasingly work at the level of systems and architecture, understanding the business rationale, recognizing patterns and judging whether AI-generated code fits the wider application and holds together.

One company that has innovated in this area and is already reaping the rewards for their experience is Ford. They recently hired 350 experienced engineers to help train younger colleagues and improve their AI and automation tools.

The shift was driven by the fact that the AI tools weren't producing the results they wanted without the expertise brought by seasoned professionals. Now, these experienced engineers act as internal auditors, reviewing designs and finding potential problems before they become major issues on the factory floor.

When you combine AI's ability to recognize patterns and process information with human knowledge and experience, it becomes a much more powerful tool. This combination is what makes it truly effective, not just relying on one or the other.

Building trust

Enterprises should also resist the pressure to deploy agents everywhere simply because competitors appear to be doing so. When it comes to using AI, leaders need to think carefully about each situation.

They should ask themselves three important questions. First, are they asking AI to only suggest what to do or to actually do it? Next, can someone check and fix what the AI says before an error spreads? Finally, what would happen if the system is certain about something but is actually wrong?

The answers play a big role in deciding how much freedom to give the technology. For example, a tool that summarizes documents might only need a quick check, but a system that suggests business decisions needs someone's logged approval.

When companies start using AI for specific, practical tasks, it shows employees that it can really make a difference in their work. This approach gives the company a chance to get its data, rules and processes in order. If people can see that the system is working well, and they understand what it can and can't do, they start to trust it more. Over time, this trust grows.

The key is to create a work setup where humans and machines do what they're good at. AI is great at processing large volumes of information and surfacing patterns. People are good at understanding the bigger picture, pointing out mistakes, and taking responsibility for their actions.

The wrong job to give to AI is any task where a mistake carries real consequences, no one checks the work before it causes harm, or the system sounds certain while being wrong. Companies that respect this division will build the confidence to give agentic AI greater autonomy over time. Those who ignore it may discover that a single poorly chosen task can undermine their entire AI strategy.

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

Looking for iPhone Duo alternatives? Compare the four best options for 2026 from Samsung, Google, Motorola, and Apple before spending $1,999.

The post iPhone Duo Alternatives in 2026: 4 Phones to Consider Before Spending $1,999 appeared first on TechRepublic.

• OpenAI agent breached Australia’s Medicare portal on June 18, 2026, accessing internal files
• Government says no personal medical data was taken, but three other agencies may be affected
• PM Albanese slammed OpenAI’s 84‑day delay in disclosure, calling the notification “unacceptable” and warning of legal consequences

An OpenAI agent has allegedly broken into a website of the Australian government, which has slammed the “unacceptable” attack, promising an in-depth investigation, and threatening “legal consequences”.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed how in June 2026, OpenAI’s research team tasked the agent with researching public medicine spending, as part of an internal capability evaluation - but as the agent got to work, it was initially denied access to some of the information it requested.

However, instead of stopping, or trying to find a different lawful way of obtaining this data, it circumvented those restrictions and landed inside the infrastructure behind Services Australia’s public-facing Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal.

AI agent did what?

The public details are still quite limited, and we don’t know the technicalities of what the AI actually did.

The acting prime minister, Richard Marles, told the media during a recent press conference that the AI “scaled the fence”, despite the portal having security measures in place.

The bot apparently accessed internal infrastructure and wrote files to an internal server but exactly what it wrote, how it obtained the access, and precisely which technical mechanism it used, is still not public knowledge.

Once inside, it accessed both public and non-public files, but individual medical data was not accessed and the system itself was not compromised, the Australian government said.

There is also the possibility that three other government systems were affected - the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and two state-based agencies - the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the Victorian Department of Health. However, this has not been confirmed yet.

"No personal information is believed to have been accessed at this stage, but investigations are ongoing," Albanese said. "Nonetheless this situation is obviously unacceptable."

OpenAI's sluggish escalation

Albanese was particularly unsatisfied with how OpenAI handled the situation. The breach happened on June 18, but it took the company 84 days to notify the Australian government of the incident. And when it did - it did so in a manner better suited for an amateurish start-up rather than one of the most important organizations on the planet right now.

OpenAI was apparently evaluating its models, and investigating “misaligned model activity” when, on August 11, it discovered the breach in Australia. It seems the AI agent simply did not take “no” for an answer. The company then notified Services Australia on September 10 - almost three months after the incident. To make matters worse, the company reached out via publicdisclosures@servicesaustralia.gov.au, inbox researchers usually use to report potential vulnerabilities, instead of trying to escalate the incident higher.

Services Australia reviewed the information and notified the Australian Signals Directorate on September 15.

When the news reached prime minister Anthony Albanese, he spoke to OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, and expressed the country’s “extreme concern” about this incident, as well as his “disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred.” He also pointed out the way OpenAI reached out: “The notification was an email sent just to the public mailbox.” Albanese described the “nature of the notification” as “unacceptable.”

The Australian government is now looking into the matter to see if any laws were broken and what legal consequences, if any, could follow.

"And obviously we will investigate all of that. What the consequences are, if there has been a breach of the law, but also part of the task force is to assess whether or not the legal regime we have in place is fit–for–purpose in a world where we have an emerging AI capability,” Marles said.

Via BBC

IFR counted about 7,000 humanoid robot sales in 2025, but many units remain in research and workplace pilots rather than productive commercial roles.

The post IFR Counts 7,000 Humanoid Robot Sales as Workplace Pilots Stay Small appeared first on TechRepublic.

• French streaming service Qobuz is introducing tags to denote AI-slop music
• The firm also shared stats on how many people engage with this kind of audio
• Meanwhile, Spotify wants you to use its new AI agent to listen to music

When AI-made music is covered in the media, it's often painted to be an insidious success story; reports on artists including Velvet Sundown, Breaking Rust and Enlly Blue invariably mention high stream numbers, along with huge estimated revenues. If that rightly frustrates you, know that the problem is occasionally with the reporting, and not with AI music being popular.

French streaming service Qobuz has never been backwards about coming forwards when tackling what Managing Director Dan Mackta refused to call music at all, when we spoke to him earlier in the year. And now, Qobuz has unveiled a feature which adds tags to music it detects was generated with AI. This goes further than Spotify's opt-in AI persona label, by highlighting real artists' slop tracks. So expect to see it on Dr. Dre's new music, for example.

This continues a run of anti-AI moves from streaming services such as Qobuz, Deezer and Tidal, which have all identified sentiment to slop at being overwhelmingly negative. Highlights include Tidal giving no royalties to AI music, and Deezer adding a filter to remove AI tracks.

The major outlier is Spotify, which has made small steps to combat AI music, but some steps backwards too. Recently, it teamed up with Meta's AI agent Muse (no, not the Plug In Baby band, the chatbot that Meta kicked the band off its social handles for). This partnership lets you... queue up music, give voice commands to control your playlists, create playlists, and set up playing schedules. How did we cope before AI?

Time to decide whether you want Muse (band), or Muse (Meta)?

(Image credit: Spotify /Muse (Meta))

But perhaps the war against AI is all for naught? Because when unveiling its new AI tag system, Qobuz also shared some statistics on this kind of 'music' (word used lightly), which recontextualize the whole thing.

Case in point: apparently only 0.38% of streams on Qobuz are from AI-generated tracks. Yes, less than half a percent. For every 263 streams, only one comes from an AI track. If all the streams were represented by the population of the US, team AI would just about fill up Dallas.

There's more: over a third of all AI albums receive not a single listen. Not even from their creator. That's about four million songs, apparently, all of which are created just to take up space (and have been removed from Qobuz's library, so if you missed them, it's too late).

And if that wasn't enough, apparently 60% of all AI-music is demonetized by Qobuz's anti-fraud systems. This is based on the brand's AI Charter, unveiled in February, which detects AI music created solely for financial gain.

Qobuz is the original hi-res music service and as the connoisseurs' choice (devoid of many extra AI add-ons), one could argue that very few users are hitting up Qobuz for AI tracks, but still, the figures are telling. According to these Qobuz stats, you're largely all avoiding AI slop — well done you, take a pat on the back — and sticking to real music made by real people. Well, mostly. Looking at you, 0.38%...

QuickBooks Free can support unlimited invoicing through QuickBooks Payments. See payment fees, setup steps, limits, and what eligible users should know.

The post QuickBooks Free Can Support Unlimited Invoices: Here’s How It Works appeared first on TechRepublic.

Artificial intelligence has become a significant area of investment for UK businesses. More than £6 billion of new AI-related investment was announced during London Tech Week in June, while the UK remains home to the largest AI sector in Europe and the third largest globally.

From customer service and knowledge management to software development and internal operations, organizations are looking for places where AI tools can improve productivity, decision-making and business performance.

But as investment accelerates, another gap is becoming harder to ignore: organizations are often scaling AI faster than their ability to measure, govern and explain its value. That matters when CIOs and CFOs are increasingly being asked not simply whether AI is being adopted, but what the organization is getting in return.

As businesses move from individual copilots towards agents embedded across workflows, the economics become more complicated. A user making a single prompt is relatively easy to understand. An agent may make multiple model calls, retrieve information, invoke tools and take actions to complete one task.

Depending on the platform and pricing model, that can introduce additional consumption, infrastructure and oversight costs. CIOs therefore need to understand not only where AI has been deployed, but what it is doing, what it costs and whether the outcome justifies that cost.

The not-so-hidden cost of AI

AI investment is increasingly being scrutinized in the same way as any other major technology investment. The difficulty is that measuring its return can be unusually complex.

Usage may be distributed across departments, applications, models and workflows, while the benefits can range from time saved to improved quality, reduced risk or increased revenue. Without agreeing what success means first, organizations can end up measuring activity rather than value.

That becomes difficult when organizations expand AI without first defining where it sits in the workflow, who owns the outcome, what success looks like and how costs will be measured. Spending can become fragmented across licenses, models, infrastructure, platforms and consumption-based services, with no single view of whether those investments are delivering value.

The scale of the challenge is becoming visible. Research commissioned by Emergn estimates that large UK businesses lose £67 billion annually across transformation and AI initiatives that fail to deliver. Separately, a Censuswide survey of 500 senior UK decision-makers found that just 31% of businesses already using AI reported a positive return on their investment.

Governance is part of that measurement challenge. A 2026 ShareGate survey of 851 IT leaders across seven countries found that cost visibility was the most commonly cited barrier to measuring AI ROI, identified by 51% of respondents, followed closely by governance complexity at 47%. The challenge isn't simply knowing what AI costs. It's connecting that cost to the use case it supports, the information AI interacts with and the outcome it creates.

Much of the AI debate to date has focused on model selection, skills and productivity. But as adoption spreads, another gap is becoming visible: confidence in governance does not always match what happens in practice.

The same study found that 93% of IT leaders believed their Microsoft 365 governance was ready to support AI responsibly, yet 29% reported that AI tools had surfaced sensitive internal data that should not have been accessible. Another 8% weren't sure whether it had happened at all.

Those gaps carry costs as well as risk. Duplicated tools, additional validation, rework, security investigations and time spent establishing whether an output can be trusted all create a hidden tax on AI adoption. For CIOs trying to demonstrate value, reducing that friction starts with making AI usage more visible, accountable and measurable.

How organizations can regain control

Good governance doesn’t begin and end at procurement. Knowing how many licenses have been purchased and where they have been assigned is useful, but regaining control requires a broader view: visibility into how AI is being used and what it costs, clear ownership of the outcomes, and a well-governed information environment for AI to work from.

Clear ownership matters just as much. As AI becomes embedded in business processes, responsibility can easily become fragmented across IT, security, business teams and individual employees. That makes some basic questions surprisingly difficult to answer: Who owns the outcome? Who monitors the cost? Who decides whether a use case should scale, change or stop?

Cost governance is only part of the picture. Organizations also need to improve the information environment in which AI operates. That means reducing redundant and outdated content, managing access appropriately and helping employees and AI systems find authoritative sources.

Cleaner, better-governed information does not guarantee a correct AI response, but it can reduce ambiguity and make reliable grounding easier. That can mean less time spent searching, validating and reworking outputs.

Employees have a role here as well. Clearly distinguishing drafts from approved material, keeping trackers and priorities current, recording decisions and maintaining authoritative sources all make organizational context easier for people and AI to interpret. Where organizations use AI meeting assistants or similar tools to capture context, those tools should be subject to the same privacy, retention and access controls as the information they create.

The question for leaders, then, is no longer simply whether AI is worth the investment. It is whether they have enough visibility and control to understand where AI is creating value, where it is creating cost and what they should do differently as a result. AI investment is likely to continue, but under different expectations.

Deployment alone is not evidence of value, and governance is becoming more than a risk-management exercise; it is increasingly part of the business case. Leaders need to understand what AI costs, who is accountable for its outcomes, whether the information supporting it can be trusted and what measurable benefit it creates.

The organizations best positioned to scale will not necessarily be those deploying the most AI, but those that can explain what it is doing, understand what it costs and make informed decisions about where it belongs.

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

Since 1998, we've been enjoying the feature films and TV shows of one Guy Ritchie. A man who arguably defined the British gangster sub-genre, cult hits like Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels have stood the test of time.

Fast-forward to 2026, and streaming hits like Netflix's The Gentlemen and Paramount+'s MobLand are all anybody wants to talk about... and rightly so. And that's all without scratching the surface of the projects Ritchie has worked on in between.

But can you fill in the gaps? I've created the ultimate quiz for any and all Guy Ritchie fans, focusing on his feature-length movies and TV shows over the last three decades.

I didn't say it was going to be easy, though... so do your worst.

Of course, all of this is up to the time of writing — we already know that we've got plenty more Ritchie projects to look forward to.

Young Sherlock season 2, The Gentlemen season 3 and MobLand season 3 have all either been greenlit or are in development. There's a few more titles to add to this list... but that would be giving away the quiz questions.

Much like Ritchie-style gangster, I'm just not that nice.

NVIDIA Isaac ROS 5.0 adds agent-ready tools, Ubuntu 24.04 support, and GPU acceleration to help developers build and test robotics software faster.

The post NVIDIA Brings AI Agents to Robotics With Isaac ROS 5.0 appeared first on TechRepublic.

• Disney has confirmed new price hikes for Disney+ and Hulu in the US
• However, the cost of three bundles has been frozen
• Fans in the UK, Europe, and Australia won't be affected for the time being

Disney has confirmed price hikes for all but three of its standalone Disney+ and Hulu plans, and bundles including both platforms, in the US — but there's no word on when other nations might be hit by similar rises.

Yesterday (September 23), Bloomberg reported that the entertainment giant was about to increase the cost of signing up for a subscription for the sixth time in as many years.

Per Bloomberg's sources, the biggest markup would see the Hulu-Disney+ Premium (ad-free) bundle go up by 13% to $21.49 per month. That means new and current users would have to pay an additional $2.50 every 30 days. Meanwhile, the cost of numerous other standalone tiers and bundles would go up by as little as $0.50 or as much as $3.00.

The latest price hikes come as Marvel fans prepare for Avengers: Doomsday's arrival with another MCU movie marathon (Image credit: Marvel Studios)

Approached by TechRadar for comment, Disney acknowledged that Bloomberg's report was factual.

However, the studio was keen to stress that three of its bundles, including its cheapest offering — the Hulu-Disney+ bundle (with ads) experience — would not be subject to price increases.

Disney added that, compared to its rivals raising the cost of their standalone ads-based tiers by 13%, it had only done so by 4%. Finally, the House of Mouse attributed the price hike to investing in the user experience by way of new technology, features, and back-end improvements.

For reference, here's a full breakdown of every price rise or freeze across Disney's myriad streaming service offerings in the US:

• Disney+, Hulu Bundle (with ads) — staying flat at $12.99
• Disney+, Hulu Bundle Premium (ad free) — increasing +$2 to $21.99
• Disney+ and Hulu standalone plans (with ads) — increasing +$0.50 to $12.49
• Disney+ and Hulu Premium standalone plans (ad free) — increasing +$2.50 to $21.49
• Disney+, Hulu, ESPN Select Bundle (with ads) — increasing +$2 to $21.99
• Disney+, Hulu, ESPN Select Bundle Premium (ad free) — increasing +$3 to $32.99
• Disney+, Hulu, ESPN Unlimited Bundle (with ads) — staying flat at $35.99
• Disney+, Hulu, ESPN Unlimited Bundle Premium (ad free) — staying flat at $44.99

Why the UK, Europe, and Australia is immune to the Disney+ price hike — for now

Disney+ users outside of the US should steel themselves for further price rises, too (Image credit: Ivan Marc/Shutterstock)

Crucially, UK and European subscribers appear to be temporarily immune to these price increases.

Responding to a separate request for comment from TechRadar, a Disney+ UK spokesperson told me: "We don't have anything to share on UK or European pricing at this time."

However, in previous years, UK and European fans have seen the cost of Disney+ climb just weeks after their US counterparts were slapped with the now-annual price hike. I wouldn't be stunned, then, if account holders in these regions are forced to pay more for two of the world's best streaming services in the weeks ahead.

Australian Disney+ users were hit by a price hike in April, so it's unlikely — but not completely out of the question — that they'll experience another one in due course.

Regardless of whether you've been hit by this latest price hike, it's been a rough few days for Disney+ users all around.

The week began with Disney having to placate furious fans over inaccurate reports that its ad-free Disney+ tiers would start showing ads. The dust hadn't settled on that story before fans learned that Marvel TV show Daredevil: Born Again would end after its forthcoming third season on Disney+, too.

I'm not superstitious but, as the saying goes, bad news comes in threes. Let's hope that this is the third and final piece of unwelcome news that Disney fans have to deal for a while, then.

Google is building persistent AI memory designed to stay unreadable to Google, with device-held keys and independent security testing.

The post Google Is Building AI Memory Designed to Stay Locked Even From Google appeared first on TechRepublic.

Microsoft cuts 268 Xbox jobs and shifts Halo development to Activision as its gaming overhaul reshapes studios, Game Pass, and future releases.

The post Microsoft Cuts 268 Xbox Jobs, Moves Halo Development to Activision appeared first on TechRepublic.

• Revolut reveals new payment method which just needs a smile
• Facial recognition technology will help identify Revolut customers
• Technology could help protect SMBs from losses caused by tech outages

If you've ever been about to pay for something in a shop and suddenly realised you've misplaced your wallet, Revolut may have the answer to help avoid any more embarrassing situations.

The payments giant is launching Revolut Pay with Smile, the UK’s first in-store facial recognition checkout, meaning customers can pay with a glance or even a smile - no need for a wallet or even a phone.

The move looks to make sure that UK small businesses don't lose money from payment terminal issues, whether hardware or software-related, offering a new way to accept payments.

Pay with Smile

We were invited along to try out the new Revolut Pay with Smile at a Kiss the Hippo Coffee shop in central London, where customers could try out the new technology.

Guests who paid in-store with a smile were able to order from a special Revolut menu, with speciality coffees at £1 - a bargain in today's market.

We gave it a go, and found the process to be pretty painless - much like authenticating yourself on a phone app, or having your photo taken at passport control, it was fairly quick and smooth to get through - and the coffee wasn't bad either.

All it took was a quick facial scan, and the system verified the payment in a matter of seconds - quicker than many contactless payments, we'd say.

Users will have to be existing Revolut customers, as the system uses advanced facial technology to verify the user's identity against the selfie ID checks they added when first signing up to Revolut to authenticate and process a payment securely.

Powered by the new Revolut Register, a modular, two-screen register designed to bring together payments, banking, and floor operations, Pay with Smile offers 0% processing fees for merchants, a huge boost when overhead costs are higher than ever.

Transactions are authenticated with end-to-end encryption managed inside the Revolut app, with no personal data stored by merchants

Revolut Register is available now with a special 50% discount for £349.50 + VAT (RRP: £699 + VAT) on a merchant's first terminal until 31st December 2026 for both new and existing customers.

Adidas' has collaborated with Pokémon and the results are far wackier than I was expecting. The new lineup of themed sneakers ranges from subtle (pearlescent lilac Handball Spezial shoes) to downright inconvenient (orange Superstar Vintage sneakers with a giant orange wing protruding from one side). But can you tell which shoe goes with which Pokémon?

You might be looking below at that furry yellow sneaker with ears and thinking this will be a cake-walk, but they're not all the most obvious choices you might expect for a big Adidas collab. As you get further down, there's little more than a color scheme to go off. Okay, yes, the character outlines are visible if you look closely… but maybe that's cheating?

Scroll down to check out the full range, and let us know how you did in our poll at the bottom.

Adidas X Pokémon: US range

Hop down to the UK range

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Mid Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — yellow

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar Vintage Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — white

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — red

Adidas X Pokémon Handball Spezial Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon Adistar Control 5 Shoes — purple

Adidas X Pokémon Adistar Control 5 Shoes — green

Adidas X Pokémon Samba OG Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon: UK range

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Mid Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — yellow

Adidas X Pokémon Handball Spezial Shoes

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — white

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar Vintage Shoes — orange

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — red

Adidas X Pokémon Superstar II Shoes — orange

Adidas X Pokémon Adistar Control 5 Shoes — purple

Adidas X Pokémon Adistar Control 5 Shoes — green

Adidas X Pokémon Samba OG Shoes — purple

Our 5K Test System

Motherboard: Asus TUF Gaming B550M-Plus WiFi II
Processor: AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D
CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Prism240 Liquid Cooler
GPU: Asus TUF GeForce RTX 4080 Super OC
Storage: 1TB Samsung 980, 4TB Lexar NM790
Case: Lian Li A3 m-ATX
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 32GB (16x2) DDR4
PSU: Seasonic 750W
Monitor: LG 39GX950B-B

I can't stress enough that Control Resonant is an absolute marvel in terms of visual enjoyment. Remedy Entertainment has crafted one of the most immersive visual experiences in gaming, doubling down on its predecessor's trippy, psychedelic, and mind-bending nature, and taking it to a new level using Nvidia's path tracing.

Putting my Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Super to the test, I ran Control Resonant on LG's 39-inch 5K2K OLED monitor, and I was pleasantly surprised by the significant enhancement to every detail on screen (albeit it did leave my GPU rather toasty).

At a 5120 x 2160 display resolution which is a 21:9 aspect ratio, you're getting 33% more pixels than a regular 4K gaming monitor at a 16:9 ratio, so the demand on the GPU is harder than most can handle — and even though Control Resonant was cooking my GPU, the frame rate was quite surprising.

Control Resonant with path tracing enabled (Image credit: Remedy Entertainment)

With DLSS 4.5 Quality and Frame Generation enabled, and the high graphics and high ray tracing presets, performance remained fairly consistent within the high 50fps to low 60fps range. At 5K2K resolution, that's very reasonable, even if Control Resonant relies on Frame Generation to keep the gameplay smooth.

Dropping DLSS down to Performance mode pushed the frame rate to the high 80fps mark, and it's worth noting that it remained consistent even in moments of intense combat with tons of foliage and objects involved.

It's worth noting that the graphics with standard ray tracing are still fantastic, and the high (or even the medium) preset is likely the best route for any PC gamer who is using a low- to mid-range GPU (with Frame Generation). Lighting in all areas, specifically those where the Hiss is present (the really bright red zones), is phenomenal, and frankly, that applies to the experience without any ray tracing at all.

Path to victory

(Image credit: Remedy Entertainment)

However, the star of the show is path tracing, which can be enabled by switching to the ultra ray tracing preset. I instantly knew my GPU was in for a rough ride once its temperature shot up to nearly 80C — but that's to be expected when running path tracing on a 5K2K display.

With DLSS Performance and Frame Generation enabled, I was able to achieve a solid 60fps in most scenarios, with occasional dips into the high 50s during traversal and combat. This aligns well with Remedy's system requirements for Control Resonant, which require an RTX 5080 for 60fps at 2160p using DLSS Performance, as the RTX 4080 Super is relatively close to this current-gen GPU for performance.

Realistically, this setup is out of the question for most gamers, as it will cost around $3,000 / £3,000 (or potentially more). LG's display is very expensive, sitting at $1,799.99 / £1,499 (on sale I should note), but an Alienware AW3926QW 5K2K alternative might help lower the cost.

The RTX 4000 series is discontinued, but pricing for anything equivalent to the RTX 4080 Super in the current-gen line-up (an RTX 5070 Ti or RTX 5080) would cost at least $800 (much more for the latter GPU), and then you need to add the cost of the other PC parts.

Handheld gaming PCs are still expensive, but more reasonable than an entire new PC build — and I tested Control Resonant on my Lenovo Legion Go S Z1 Extreme. That portable managed a solid 40fps on its handheld preset, and 70fps when dropping the resolution to 900p and enabling FSR Balanced with frame gen.

Overall, running Control Resonant at 5K2K is very demanding for any gaming PC, as expected, but I walk away shocked that it's even remotely possible given how much it elevates the gaming experience.

• The Z5 II C is a lighter version of the full-frame Nikon Z5 II, without a viewfinder
• Prices start at $1,399 / £1,349 / AU$2,399, on-sale date mid-October
• It's available in black or black/silver colorways, and numerous lens kit options

Nikon redefined entry-level full-frame cameras with the Z5 II, which scooped our Camera of the Year 2025 award. Now the company is upending the notion that full-frame is just for pros with its most affordable and compact model in this format yet, the Z5 II C.

As its name suggests, the Z5 II C is a ‘compact’ version of the Z5 II, and the key difference is that it doesn’t have a viewfinder (and it has a single card slot rather than dual slots). This means the ‘C’ model is smaller, lighter and cheaper.

It still has a tough magnesium-alloy body with a chunky grip, is sealed for dust and moisture resistance, and packs a healthy 3.2-inch, 2.1m-dot vari-angle LCD, all carried over from the Z5 II. The cameras share identical features too; the same 24.5MP full-frame sensor with image stabilization that’s rated up to 7.5EV.

Nikon UK's Training Specialist Ricci Chera briefed me on the camera ahead of its September 24 announcement and mid-October on-sale date, emphasizing that the Z5 II C is about choice, offering certain users the “benefits of full-frame, without paying for something they’re never going to use [a viewfinder]”.

Is Nikon onto something here? Is the $1,399 / £1,349 / AU$2,399 asking price enough of a gap to tempt first-time buyers, or sway them from the Z5 II?

NikonNikonSo, full-frame is for beginners now?

The low £1,349 / AU$2,399 asking price of the ‘C’ version seems pretty appealing, especially given the spec and features you're getting: the Z5 II C has the same sensor as the Z5 II and Nikon’s latest processor, while its subject-detection autofocus can recognize subjects even when they take up as little as 3% of the frame, and which is low-light sensitive to -10EV (with a new ‘fish’ detection mode added — that’s a first),

There's also 14fps with a mechanical shutter (30fps electronic) and 4K video with 12-bit N-RAW internal recording, and much more. Besides the Lumix S9, I can't think of a better-value full-frame camera, and not one that launched for such a low price.

The price and compact size are the major selling points of this full-frame model, which Nikon says is about offering users "choice" — the pricier and larger Z5 II with a viewfinder and dual card slots, or the cheaper and smaller viewfinder-less Z5 II C. I get the logic.

However, I’d still stump up the extra cash for the Z5 II — its viewfinder is bright, big and immersive, it has the extra card slot, and I personally don’t mind the extra size and 100g in weight (the Z5 II C is around 600g with card and battery inserted while the Z5 II is around 700g).

Video-first users and even smartphone upgraders who've never experienced a viewfinder might not feel the same way, and for them the Z5 II C could prove to be the wiser choice, and one of the hits of 2026. We'll bring you our review of Nikon's latest full-framer soon.

With freshly unveiled Snapdragon 8 Elite chips, Xiaomi’s 18 Pro and 18 Pro Max represent a new generation of Android flagship devices.

• $1.6 billion has been claimed by scammers impersonating police and government officials
• The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received almost 61,000 complaints concerning such scams between January 2025 and July 2026
• Some scams targeted foreign nationals and immigrants, threatening to cancel passports or impose extradition, unless payment is made

Between January 2025 and July 2026, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received almost 61,000 complaints concerning scams using police and government official impersonation tactics. As a result, around $1.6 billion is believed to have been scammed and extorted.

Tactics used by scammers included unsolicited phone calls and in some cases video calls, with victims losing an average of $26,000 per scam.

Particularly concerning is the targeting of foreign nationals, international students, and immigrant citizens, often with threats to cancel visas and home country passports. Incredibly, 10% of all losses were traced to a single scam, one that targeted fewer than 3% of the victims.

Foreign national victims

According to the FBI, the fake cop/fake government official scam has various angles, from alleging missed jury duty to threatening arrest due to circumstantial links to an alleged crime.

The demand from the scammers, inevitably, is payment.

Making a commitment to extreme lengths of scamming and extortion, the criminals took things to a new level when it came to targeting victims. International students, visiting foreign nationals, and other immigrant citizens were given special treatment. Not only were they threatened with extradition, there was also the implication of victims losing their home country passport.

To convince the target, scammers built actual studio sets, donned uniforms or suits, and appeared in video calls to the victims, who were convinced they were talking to foreign law enforcement agents or US-based diplomats. Creating the illusion of officialdom to sell the scam, victims paid whatever necessary to stay in their adopted country.

How to spot the scam

It is important to note that not all fraud of this type takes place in the US. These may be online or offline, but the so-called fake cop scam is an international criminal phenomenon. So, how do you avoid it?

We’ll assume you’ve answered a call inadvertently rather than having spam calls blocked (that should be set already).

First, remain calm. These situations are designed to impose stress and heightened anxiety. Scammers rely on these factors to cloud their victim’s judgement and force the narrative they are selling (“you missed jury duty”/“your presence in the country is illegal.”)

Second, it is vital to request credentials. Failure to provide these is the first red flag that the person communicating with you is not what they seem. That’s your cue to end the conversation.

Third, check the credentials. It doesn’t matter how long this takes – a legitimate caller will not mind waiting for you to do the necessary background check, even if it means them calling back.

Finally, and most importantly: neither law enforcement, security services, nor the FBI will demand money. If that is happening, it’s time to end the call.

State regulators presented evidence of unaddressed discrimination, wage disparities and hostile conditions on the EV maker’s Fremont assembly line.