TechRadar News

Good news everyone - it seems that the reason AI hasn't yet resulted in less work and more leisure time, as promised by multiple "evangelists" and AI "experts" is that we just love working too darn much.

That's according to OpenAI CEO and America's next top (AI) model whisperer Sam Altman, who has declared that people are just really big fans of grinding away and competing with others.

Speaking on the Relentless podcast, Altman told host Ti Morse that in fact, he doesn't expect a change in society or working practices for quite some time, despite widespread promises that AI would boost our productivity and efficiency across the board.

AI "won't change" work - yet

"Technology, for a long time, has been promising people that they're going to work less and they're going to have all this leisure," Altman said.

"But somehow we never get the promise of the four-hour workweek at mass scale in society," he added. "And I don't expect AI to change that."

It's a remarkably candid admission from the leader of a company which is explicitly setting out to solve some of the world's biggest problems - whether personal or work-related - with AI.

In fact, Altman pointed out that we do have more free time and luxuries today than at any point in history - but this has led to increased expectations from many people.

"We always want more," Altman added, "we think of new things to do, to create for each other, to want for ourselves. It's like a relative game. People are very focused on how they're doing relative to other people."

"I think we're all going to be much busier than we thought we were supposed to be in a post-superintelligence world. We're still going to complain about it, but secretly we're going to be happy," Altman concluded.

I'm not so sure about that - but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Play it again, Sam

I'm not so sure about that - but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

That's because Altman has been pretty vocal on the future of AI in the workplace for some time, with his viewpoints often changing depending on the situation.

For starters, he recently revealed OpenAI's future strategy would be not to automate everything but to allow people to make better decisions as AI improves their lives, particularly as it expects an AGI world to be here by 2028.

"Entirely automating everything is not the future we want", Altman declared, as he described how OpenAI is now looking to opens a "third phase" and aims to build technology "to benefit everyone".

In May 2026, Altman also criticized companies blaming job cuts on AI - but did admit the technology has some accountability in displacing human workers.

"I would expect that the real impact of AI on jobs, in the next few years, to begin to be palpable," Altman explained, adding that "Of course we'll find new kinds of jobs."

Days later, Altman said he would be "delighted to be wrong" about the effect of AI on human roles, hitting out at claims the increasing global usage of AI technology worldwide will lead to a "jobs apocalypse".

"I thought there would have been more impact on entry-level white-collar jobs being eliminated by now than ​has actually happened," Altman said, who also admitted that while he believed OpenAI has been "roughly right" on the technological predictions it made when it launched ​ChatGPT in 2022, they were "pretty wrong" on the social and economic implications.

At the time of writing, 252 companies have announced job cuts in 2026 so far, leading to 124,255 employees losing their roles (via Layoffs.fyi) - people who, I suppose, do now have a lot more free time than they expected.

The PlayStation 5 Pro has been my primary, booted-up-nearly-every-day console since the premium PS5 variant launched in late 2024. I’ve used it a lot on both a 60Hz display and a 120Hz display, and the experience it gives me on both for my PS5 games has been basically flawless.

The extra power, chops, and graphical prowess that it offers have been superb for a console enthusiast like me. It makes both fidelity-focused and performance-focused game settings better, but has also paved the way for a new middle ground between the two.

This in-between mode, often labeled as ‘Balanced’, allows players with a 120Hz display to enjoy a host of enhanced ray tracing features and boosted image quality, with a bunch of extra frames per second, giving it a clear boost over standard fidelity modes, which are normally locked at 30fps. What’s even better is that you can often engage this mode on base PS5 or PS5 Slim consoles when those are teamed with a 120Hz-capable display too, and it’s proving once again to be a saving grace for fidelity-chasers this generation.

This Balanced mode is absolutely excellent in Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced and is the only way I’d recommend a PS5 or PS5 Pro user to play what is one of the best Assassin's Creed games. It combines the sheer beauty of the Anvil-engine-powered Caribbean setting with loads of water, shadow, and particle detail to boot, with a 40fps frame rate that, while not as super slick as 60fps, is absolutely noticeably better than 30fps. The difference is huge.

Two and a half years ago, I wrote how I was happy with 4K 30fps on console. But, after spending time with a PS5 Pro, I will happily admit that my preferences and opinions have changed — and that gives me much confidence when it comes to Grand Theft Auto 6.

Perfectly balanced

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

Not that long ago, stories were circulating saying that GTA 6 having a 60fps mode on console would be unlikely. And it was something to take note of too, given it was coming from the brilliant tech analysts over at Digital Foundry.

I don’t think many folks were truly surprised at this. The amount of technical brilliance and sheer detail that will likely go into GTA 6 will surely translate into the amount of demand on a console’s GPU and CPU. Think of the poor old Series S trying to run such a behemoth. Godspeed, little Xbox.

However, playing Assassin’s Creed Black Flag Resynced on its Balanced mode right now has me feeling a bit more confident in the prospects of what we may have to settle for on GTA 6.

While the smoothness of 60fps is a joy on a console like the PS5 or PS5 Pro, I am one to chase graphical fidelity wherever I can.

I’m a sucker but also quasi-expert on video game landscapes and environments in a way, so I will always desire to see more detail like the edges of leaves, the fluttering of foliage in the wind, and expansive vistas across lands as far as the eye can see, views scattered with landscape features, ruins, and blissful seas — all at the expense of a few more frames. And that’s what Resynced’s 40fps mode does.

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

The glorious beauty and image quality that’s on offer in the balanced mode isn’t far off the fidelity-focused 30fps mode at all. The overall fidelity in balanced mode is fantastic. I can enjoy all the detail of plants and foliage, and every landscape element and urban rooftop or dwelling is a sight to behold, genuinely.

Sony’s enhanced PlayStation Spectral Super Resolution (PSSR) tech, and the benefits of variable refresh rate (VRR) play a big part in how good it looks on PS5 Pro too, of course. The former offers excellent boosts to anti-aliasing, overall image detail and quality (at least in my eye), and things like the flickering of fire and light — something again noticed by Digital Foundry. The latter, VRR, does — as usual, in my experience — a great job of smoothing out any potential frame rate drops to reduce tearing, too, but it’s not something I’ve been hugely concerned about generally with Resynced.

The extended ray tracing is also excellent in this mode on PS5 Pro, with shadows being fantastic, reflections being lifelike and adding an extra mirror-like quality to views, and particles of dust or vegetation fluttering beautifully in the wind. The water is absolutely lovely too, with each splash from Edward Kenway’s swimming perfectly natural and evocative of how the seas would behave, and the glistening rocks and sand of every beach. Blissful at every glance.

A reason to be confident

(Image credit: Ubisoft)

As I said above, the difference between 30 and 40fps is absolutely noticeable and tangible, and while the jump to 60 is even smoother, I concede that the fact that one can cling on to extended ray tracing and high levels of detail at 40fps is a triumph and offers a super balance. For someone who, for one reason or another, but happily, has settled on one platform in PlayStation consoles, as one’s main way to play games, and has a penchant for quality and performance, then Resynced has nailed that sweet spot.

Combine Resynced’s excellence in this mode with the likes of the Horizon games, The Last of Us games, Marvel’s Spider-Man games and more on PS5 and PS5 Pro, and the 40fps modes are the reason I’m more confident in GTA 6 if 60fps really is off the table and it does indeed end up having a balanced mode ‘instead’ of a performance mode. Plus, given Rockstar’s track record of squeezing all the graphical excellence it can out of even standard consoles — how Rockstar made Red Dead Redemption 2 look that good on base PS4 is actual witchcraft — the detail, lighting, reflections, and image quality we can expect in Vice City’s urban and natural landscapes, as well as characters adn cars, is going to be immense.

Of course, I would prefer there were a 60fps mode for GTA 6. Heck, I’d hope for the three settings we’ve grown a bit used to on the PS5 Pro covering 30, 40, and 60 frames per second modes.

But if compromises have to be made due to the likely enormous demand made by GTA 6 on consoles, then this sweet, sweet 40fps mode in the middle could be the door to excellence on PS5 and PS5 Pro, given the evidence we have so far of it being the perfect middle ground for superb graphical fidelity and deliciously smooth frame rates.

Some mild spoilers for The Odyssey ahead.

Normally, when my TikTok FYP causes me to experience an extreme case of FOMO, I do something I regret. That's ranged from buying something cheap and tacky on TikTok Shop to queueing for hours to get sub-par food at a restaurant that influencers say is my area's "best-kept secret".

But that losing streak has ended with The Odyssey in 4DX.

If you've been active on social media in the last two weeks, you might have come across the many viral videos of cinema-goers having popcorn knocked out of their hands while their chair moves at a million miles a minute in Troy, and being sprayed in the face during one of the many seen featuring Odysseus (Matt Damon) at sea.

At first, I thought these clips were performative. I hate the idea that filming in theaters has become as commonplace as it has (which is why I won't be sharing any of those clips here), but surely watching The Odyssey in 4DX isn't like a very dark log flume at Six Flags... is it?

After giving into curiosity and getting myself a ticket, I can happily confirm that the TikToks don't lie. Not only do I think that my 4DX-perience was my favorite cinema visit of 2026 so far, but having seen The Odyssey in three different formats — standard DCP, IMAX 70mm, and now 4DX — I can confirm that 4DX wins out by a long shot.

Before you think I've taken too many Greek beatings to the head — surely Christopher Nolan's original IMAX format is superior? — let me explain my thinking. Here's what you need to know about 4DX, my review of the movie in this format, and the five most brutal scenes, which on their own are, I think, worth the price of your ticket.

The Odyssey in 4DX: the basics

4DX screenings feel almost as few and far between as IMAX 70mm. There are a relatively few 790 screens worldwide, meaning that if you don't live in a big city that has one, you'll have to add the cost of a trip to the admission price.

That price is also the most premium of the three formats. I'm based in the UK, and the cost of my three options for watching the The Odyssey is as follows:

• Standard screening: £16.99
• IMAX 70mm screening: £26
• 4DX screening: £28

In the US, the prices will look something like this:

• Standard screening: $12–$20
• IMAX 70mm screening: $25-$35
• 4DX screening: approx $35

I've left out a few other formats that I haven't seen The Odyssey in, including 70mm, IMAX and Superscreen. It's also worth pointing out that thanks to my beloved Cineworld membership, I only had to pay out an additional £6 for my 4DX screening on top of the monthly direct debit.

Do I think the full price is worth the experience? Yes and no. The cost of 4DX is extortionate, and I don't think the experience would work for a first-time viewing — you'd be too busy worrying where your nachos have gone to keep up with whether Robert Pattinson is Antinous or Agamemnon.

Having said that, I think it has to be done once. As I'll explain below, I think 4DX makes for an ideal second or third viewing of The Odyssey, and I feel quite smug that I've had the chance to experience being enlightened by the Gods (of cinema tech).

What social media has got wrong, though, is the idea that The Odyssey in 4DX is a "three-hour rollercoaster." While you're getting a lot of bang for your buck in terms of movement and effects, a lot of the movie's scenes allow for the stillness you'll feel in desperate need of.

As someone who got battered relentlessly from beginning to end while watching Top Gun: Maverick in 4DX, and was worried because she'd forgotten her travel sickness tablets before heading to Ithaca, this was a welcome surprise.

However, ladies — please don't make my mistake and wear a dress or skirt. I'd recommend long pants, a supportive sports bra. I'd also recommend a minimal amount of snacks, and a maximum amount of drinks; there's ample time and space to go to the bathroom, I promise.

Don't forget: you'll be in control of some of the effects yourself. You can choose to turn water on or off at any time, and you can lean forward to avoid any unwanted back damage during fight scenes.

Review: 4DX allows The Odyssey to compensate for its lack of heart and emotion

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

My biggest problem with The Odyssey isn't just that it's clearly not Nolan's best movie, but that there's next to no heart or emotion in it.

From a technical perspective, the new film is a genuine masterpiece. Cinematography, score, performances, production design… everything, and everyone, is firing on all cylinders.

But even with all of those things in place, nothing comes through the screen enough to touch your heart. You'll absolutely be impressed… but moved? It's not like you're really rooting for anybody to reunite (and if you are, chances are they'll end up dead).

By seeing The Odyssey in 4DX, you become the character that brings the missing emotion. I defy you not to giggle your way through being slammed about on a Bronze Age boat, weep because you can literally feel the pain of Odysseus being shot by arrows, and gleefully lean into every witch-like stroke as Circe (a magnificent performance from Samantha Morton) turns soldiers into pigs.

Frankly, it's all a riot that neither Homer nor Nolan likely expected when they decided to tell this story. As I said earlier, you'll need to see the film while stationary first to fully grasp the nuances and gravitas of the story, but in 4DX you'll feel as bruised and confused as Odysseus did throughout his 10-year journey home. Bottom line: it's so much fun.

The Odyssey's most brutal scenes in 4DXAny time Odysseus is on a boat

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

Let's start with the elephant in the room. With Odysseus and his crew taking 10 years to get home to Ithaca from Troy, we spent a lot of time at sea.

For the most part, this involves of some gentle chair-rocking, not the chaotic assault on the senses you've seen on TikTok. With the effects slowed down and used minimally in these instances, you really understand how impactful the slightest spritz of water or well thought-out vibration can be.

Depending on where you're sitting in the theater, the in-seat water effects will perform differently. As I was sitting in the center of the second row of my section, I mostly got soaked on the lower half of my body. If you sit down and there's a black barrier directly in front of you; I'm sorry to say that you'll be taking some direct hits to the face.

Regardless of where you're sitting, a separate effects system in the ceiling rig of the theater, which takes care of rain, snow, smoke and light effects, will make sure that the rest of you is drenched. And even when the waters aren't choppy, for much of Odysseus' journey home he's pelted by rain storms, so maybe save hair-wash day until the day after your screening.

The cyclops

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

Our first big action sequence in The Odyssey, the cyclops scenes, are the perfect 4DX starter, getting us ready for bigger and better things to come.

Lots of sudden, juddering movements within the seat are used each time the cyclops decides to have some dinner, with additional smoke effects being used depending on how high the fire in his cave is burning. In an ideal world, I'd have liked a bit of cheese smell-o-vision at this point... but we can't have it all.

Things ramps up a level when Odysseus decides that blinding our cyclops with a hot stick is a good means of escaping. Somehow, the cyclops' painful cries — which made me think that my ear drums were going to burst during my first screening — were more palatable to listen to, perhaps because I was being distracted by the sudden whiplash I'd suffered thanks to the stick's movement.

As Odysseus disguises his men as sheep and successfully gets them out of the cave, you can almost imagine the cyclops' gigantic fingers running down your spine. Things take a more violent 4DX turn when Odysseus decides to provoke the creature with a final arrow to the face (I mean... what was the point of that?), leaving the crew to charge towards the boats on the island's coast.

We feel every tumble, misplaced step and unexpected branch-to-head contact that the boys get — but the real fun begins when the cyclops himself enters the water. Performing a belly flop that could have won him a gold medal at the Jackass Olympics, the cyclops' demise is our first real test of the in-seat water system, combined with some severe shaking as his colossal frame hits the sea.

The 7ft soldiers in silver

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

The action sequence I was the most impressed by (in terms of both production design and 4DX) is Odysseus' next stop on his ill-fated journey. The gang arrives on another island, only to be met by giant soldiers in silver armor, who remarkably were real 7ft-tall actors.

Given that they fight with machetes instead of Greek bows and arrows and swords, expect some serious upper back damage here. Out of every scene in the movie, this one inflicted the longest sustained impact between my shoulder blades, which I could still feel the next day.

What's also really fun here is the use of air bursts. Two 'air jets' are mounted on either side of your seat's headrest, and are used almost every time a Greek soldier shoots an arrow at his target. It feels exactly like the arrow is zooming past you, just without the pain.

4DX also manages to briefly incorporate the use of the snow machine during this scene, as Odysseus and co come across a woodland shrouded in dense mist.

There's a surprising lack of water effects, despite the soldiers clambering back into their boats mere minutes after they first disembarked. Only one of those boats makes it to freedom, but at least you won't be drowned, like the poor souls who didn't make it.

The final storm

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

The big kahuna, and the moment you've seen plastered all over TikTok, is the final storm. By this, I mean the scene directly after Odysseus has chastised his men for eating Apollo's cattle when Tiresias (James Remar) specifically warned them not to, and their repaired ship heads out to sea once more when the volatile winds clear.

As we know, this was a trap by Poseidon and Zeus, who mean to kill all the men responsible through a fatal storm. Incredibly, the 4DX experience is exactly as brutal as it looks in all of the social media clips.

The special effects go into overdrive, with the audience bombarded by everything bar the snow machine, and the kitchen sink, at the same time. I was holding onto my seat trying to steady myself through severe turbulence, wondering whether I was the first person in history to consume the story of The Odyssey and almost die laughing in the process.

There are shots to your back and sides, water and winds to the face, rain falling onto your head, constant strobe lighting to replicate the weather (definitely not suitable for those with epilepsy) and enough jostling to give you a mild concussion.

A special shoutout must go to the in-seat air jets by your legs, which begin to be utilized shortly before, when Odysseus must steer his vessel between the whirlpool that is Charybdis, and the six-headed monster, Scylla. If you don't have anything covering your legs, they're about to be whipped so hard that they sting.

Then just when we think it's all over, a brief pause in movement lulls the audience into a false sense of security. The boat splits in half as Odysseus' crew sinks into darkness, and we're back to being pummeled to within an inch of our lives. Make sure your snacks are firmly on the floor in the moments beforehand, or risk covering the person next to you in nacho cheese and guacamole as an unexpected additional effect.

This moment alone is worth the £28, in my opinion... what an experience.

Odysseus' homecoming fight

(Image credit: Universal Pictures)

But we're not out of the woods just yet! Before attending my 4DX screening, I wondered if the effects would be limited to scenes with lots of travel in. I'd only seen Top Gun: Maverick and Jurassic World: Dominion in the format before The Odyssey, so I didn't have a handle on what happens when you're not flying, driving, or a cretaceous monster.

Turns out, fight scenes are just as thoughtfully rendered to make your back ache for days, even if they're just in a palace hall. Once Odysseus re-fights for Penelope's (Anne Hathaway) hand in marriage at the palace trial, he turns his successfully strung bow on the group of suitors, including Antinous (Pattinson). It's a different kind of chaos, and we're once again immersed in it.

Our seats sway in whichever direction our victim is being attacked from, with our shoulders blades once again jabbed to oblivion as other weapons manage to find their way back into the great hall. The air jets are working 10 to the dozen here, but thankfully just the ones by your head.

There's a particular moment where Antinous breaks an entire chair over Odysessus' back, and it got me thinking that I should really try seeing a chiropractor for the first time. Nothing says 'final farewell' quite like a parting blow that could potentially cause permanent damage — and I wouldn't have it any other way.

If you think downloading a VPN directly from an official app store guarantees your digital privacy, it’s time to think again.

We recently undertook a huge audit of storefront verification standards, which has exposed a severe lack of quality control across both the iOS App Store and Google Play.

We evaluated developer transparency and store verification standards, analyzing 3,392 Android VPN apps (with more than 1,000 downloads) and 1,387 iOS VPN apps (with at least one review).

It appears that Google Play looks significantly worse than Apple's App Store across almost every transparency and validity metric. In fact, a mere 61.4% (851) of iOS apps passed all main validity checks, while Android trailed far behind with just 40.8% (1,210) passing the same tests.

Just because a VPN is available on an official App Store doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. Here is what the data tells us about the safety of mobile VPNs.

Storefront Enforcement & Quality Control Data

(Image credit: Google)

When you hand over your web traffic to a VPN, you expect the developer to be a real, registered business. However, storefront enforcement data proves that thousands of these apps lack even the most basic corporate infrastructure.

When it comes to maintaining a valid developer website, Apple leads the pack. Our data shows that 82.7% (1,147) of iOS apps maintain a valid developer website. In contrast, only 52.2% (1,774) of total Android apps manage to do the same (which equals 59.8% of the Android apps that actually bothered to list a URL).

But the problem goes deeper than broken links. 46.9% of valid Android websites (832) and 47.5% of total Android privacy policies (1,612) rely entirely on free third-party domains like Google Sites, GitHub, and Blogger.

In total, more than 1,200 Android developer website or privacy policy links pointed directly to free Google pages. Apple performs better here, but isn't immune; 15.6% of iOS websites (179) and 18.3% of iOS privacy policies (217) still rely on these free hosts.

So What?

Relying on free platforms like Blogger or Google Sites signals a complete lack of dedicated corporate infrastructure and financial investment. If a developer isn't willing to spend a few dollars on a custom domain, how can you trust them to invest in secure AES-256 encryption or server maintenance?

Worse, if that free third-party account is suspended or abandoned by the host, developer support and privacy documentation vanish instantly.

The platform differences are equally stark when it comes to developer contact requirements. Google Play mandates that developers display an email address, but 65.1% of Android apps (2,208) use free, public domain services like @gmail.com or @yahoo.com.

Meanwhile, iOS does not require developers to display an email address at all, and it is present on only 16.2% of iOS VPNs (225 apps).

Allowing developers to omit contact emails lets operators remain entirely anonymous. This prevents users from exercising fundamental privacy rights, such as GDPR data access or deletion requests.

It strongly indicates that the "company" is an individual or transient entity rather than a registered business, making legal accountability and data privacy enforcement virtually impossible.

Privacy Policy Misrepresentation & Boilerplate Networks

(Image credit: Shutterstock)

A VPN is only as trustworthy as its privacy policy. Premium providers like ExpressVPN and NordVPN undergo regular independent audits to verify their no-logs claims. By contrast, our audit revealed that hundreds of mobile VPNs use completely meaningless, generic, or copied text to masquerade as legitimate services.

In one example, we found 13 iOS apps sharing identical boilerplate text containing unedited template placeholders. Because the developers didn't even bother to read their own legal documents, the text still reads: "If you have questions about this Privacy Policy, contact us at support@example.com." You can view one of these identical unedited policies here.

These unedited templates contain zero binding commitments regarding VPN-specific practices, such as traffic logging, IP tracking, or bandwidth monitoring. Users are misled into assuming they are protected when, in reality, no legal policy actually exists.

Furthermore, a massive portion of these apps rely on automated "policy generator farms", sites that bulk-host generic privacy documents. The audit discovered:

• 48 Android apps hosting policies on projeto10.top
• 40 apps using freeprivacypolicy.com
• 19 apps using termsfeed.com

Automated policy generators often attach legal disclaimers stating they do not guarantee accuracy. Furthermore, the host platform can alter or remove the page without the developer's knowledge, leaving users without valid privacy terms.

Perhaps the most absurd discovery belongs to Sigma VPN, an Android app with over 100,000 downloads. Its listed privacy policy isn't a policy at all. Instead, it links directly to a copied Wix support article on how to create a privacy policy.

Even when policies are unique, they are often too short to mean anything. The audit found that 2.3% of valid Android policies (72) and 6.6% of valid iOS policies (78) contain 250 words or fewer. Highly truncated policies like these lack necessary legal disclosures regarding logging, third-party data sharing, jurisdiction, and data retention windows.

Consumer Advice & Actionable Insights

So, how do you navigate app stores safely without downloading a dud, or worse, a data-harvesting nightmare? Here is our actionable checklist to protect yourself before hitting 'Download'.

• Domain Verification: Always check that the provider operates an independent, custom web domain matching the product name, rather than a free sub-domain on Blogger or Google Sites. If they don't own their own website, they shouldn't own your web traffic.
• Policy Audit Checklist: Don't just trust the word "Privacy Policy." Open the link and search the text for generic email placeholders (like support@example.com), generator footers, or broad non-VPN terms. Confirm that the policy explicitly commits to no connection or activity logging.
• Contact Testing: Test the developer's contact channels before subscribing. Send a quick email to verify that support responsiveness and account deletion mechanisms actually exist.

The Bottom Line

Google Play's link verification method lets hundreds of apps operate using temporary blogs, blank pages, and automated generator sites. While Apple does a better job of enforcing valid web links, its main flaw is that it permits total anonymity for developers, leaving users with no way to hold iOS developers accountable legally.

In response to our investigation, Apple declined to comment on the record, pointing instead to its safety guidelines and app review processes. Meanwhile, a Google spokesperson said: “We are looking into this. When made aware of an app that violates our policies, we will review the apps in question and take appropriate action."

The final takeaway is a crucial lesson in modern cybersecurity: store listing approval reflects compliance with basic submission forms, not operational legitimacy or privacy protection. Always do your own research before trusting a mobile VPN with your personal data.

Robot vacuums have been around for many years, and modern bots are cleverer and more helpful than ever. But while they are getting more popular, they seem to be struggling to properly break through to the mainstream. See a robot vacuum in someone's house, and you'd probably still remark on it. The aim for robovac brands must be to at some point overtake manual vacs as the general public's dust-sucker of choice — so why isn't that happening?

I rounded up representatives from some of the best robot vacuum brands to get their take. I wanted to learn more about the misconceptions that brands are still fighting against, how perceptions of these handy puck-shaped home helpers has changed, and what challenges still remain if robovacs are going to truly hit the mainstream.

Get with the times

"Robot vacuums are gradually being accepted and adopted by the public, rather than being treated as a novel and unrealistic concept," insists Michael Meng, president of the robotic vacuum division at Dreame.

"Admittedly, the market share of robot vacuums is still smaller than that of stick vacuums and upright vacuums, but the trend towards automated, hands-free household cleaning is inevitable," he adds. The problem — as all of my interviewees agree — is that people's perceptions are stuck in the past.

The trend towards automated, hands-free household cleaning is inevitable

Michael Meng, Dreame

"The issue isn't technical — it's psychological," says Faraz Mehdi, a managing director at Eufy. "Many people who've used robot vacuums still associate the category with 'mopping with dirty water' and 'poor carpet cleaning' — real pain points from a few years ago. Today's products are fundamentally different."

(Image credit: Future)

"One lingering misconception is that robot vacuums are still novelty gadgets that wander randomly, get stuck constantly, and cannot clean as well as a conventional vacuum. That perception often comes from earlier generations of the category," says Ricky Ma, the general manager for Europe and America at Roborock.

The biggest opportunity is helping consumers understand that a robot vacuum is not simply a smaller vacuum; it is an automated, intelligent cleaning system

Ricky Ma, Roborock

He continues: "The biggest opportunity is helping consumers understand that a robot vacuum is not simply a smaller vacuum; it is an automated, intelligent cleaning system designed to maintain the home every day and free up their time in a way that no other appliance can compete with."

"Ultimately, the industry's continued growth will depend not only on technological innovation but also on helping consumers better understand how far the category has evolved," adds Dreame's Meng. "Bridging the gap between perception and reality remains one of the most important opportunities for the industry as a whole."

Welcome to the real world

So there are unfair assumptions about modern robot vacuum performance, but there are also genuine issues that still need to be solved. As a robovac reviewer, I'm regularly struck by how simultaneously smart and stupid these bots can be — for every bot raising itself majestically over a tall room threshold, there's another determinedly head-butting a French door.

(Image credit: Future)

I'm in wholehearted agreement with Reena Patel — a floorcare category manager at iRobot, the brand behind Roomba — when she suggests that autonomy and reliability should be the key focus areas.

"While robot vacuums have become significantly smarter, consumers still expect them to navigate increasingly complex environments, avoid everyday obstacles, handle pet hair effectively, and transition seamlessly between different floor types without intervention," she says.

"The goal is to deliver consistently excellent cleaning results while reducing the need for maintenance, ensuring the robot can truly operate as a set-and-forget solution that fits effortlessly into consumers' daily lives."

(Image credit: Future)

Minimal human intervention is one of the hot robot vacuum trends du jour, but it's easier said than done. Mehdi points out that, in the UK at least, plenty of people live in old apartments or multi-story homes, both of which are "historically a nightmare for robots". Throw in challenges like clutter, low-slung furniture, uneven flooring, and mixtures of different floor types, and it's easy to see why people might assume a robot vacuum wouldn't be able to cope.

There are solutions to some of these problems — albeit mostly confined to the premium end of the market. Today's most advanced flagship robots have features like little stilts for vaulting tall thresholds, sensors that identify and respond to different surfaces, and slimline designs that can sneak under furniture.

(Image credit: Future)

However, the challenge is to hone those features to a point where they work consistently and reliably. After all, if, your bot misjudges the height of a space and gets itself wedged, or fails to cross a step on the way back to its dock, and you're not around to bail it out, that can put a pretty abrupt end to the cleaning for the day.

"It’s one thing for a robot to perform well in a demo, but another to perform reliably, day after day, in homes that are busy, messy, and unpredictable," admits Mehdi. "The real issue isn't what the product can do, it's that consumers haven't seen it perform in their own space."

The bigger picture

The robot vacuum market has evolved considerably in the past few years, but so too has what customers are looking for. All my interviewees agreed lofty specs are no longer the route to a customer's heart (or wallet).

"Customers are looking beyond headline suction figures and realize that the performance of robot vacuums is the combination of a lot of features," says Dreame's Meng.

Eufy's Mehdi echoes his sentiments: "A few years ago, the category was often marketed around isolated features like suction power. But consumers are now evaluating robot vacuums much more holistically. People are looking for real cleaning outcomes, not just bigger numbers on a spec sheet."

Users are starting to realize that they can trust robot vacuums to take on more of their household cleaning

Michael Meng, Dreame

Expectations are also rising — a number of the brands I spoke to told me that customers increasingly want bots that can mop as well as vacuuming, and are looking for models with self-maintenance features like dust-emptying, water tank refilling, and mop washing.

iRobot's Patel comments that customers are "more willing to purchase premium robot vacuums to deliver a genuinely hands-off experience".

Dreame's Meng argues that the move from cheap-and-basic to pricey-and-advanced bots reflects a change in perceptions. "Users are starting to realize that they can trust robot vacuums to take on more of their household cleaning."

(Image credit: Future)

Pricier bots might be becoming more popular, but customers aren't willing to splash their cash on just anything. Mehdi at Eufy describes a demand for "flagship-level experiences… at broader price points", noting that even at the upper end of the market, people are "rational about value".

"The market is shifting towards products that deliver meaningful innovation people can actually use and justify paying for," he explains.

As part of this trend, the early adopters who took a leap of faith with a simpler model a few years ago are now ready for something more advanced. "We have observed a significant shift from 'first-time experimenters' to 'sophisticated upgraders'," Roborock's Ma tells me.

These shoppers are seeking out replacements that solve the issues that frustrated them with their first bot. Thanks to design innovations, many problems that plagued early robot vacuums — hair tangling, poor edge coverage and stinky mop pads — are far less common in modern models.

Not your average robovac

Features and price decisions aside, my interviewees have noticed a broader change in purchasing habits — and it's tied to how people see robot vacuums. "More consumers are treating robot vacuums as long-term home automation investments rather than one-off gadgets," says Richard Mou, co-founder of SwitchBot. "They're spending more time comparing ecosystem compatibility, software updates, and after-sales support before making a purchase."

Consumers are treating robot vacuums as long-term home automation investments rather than one-off gadgets

Richard Mou, SwitchBot

Mehdi describes a dovetailing of approaches. At the upper end of the market, he's noticed customers going really in-depth with the research and product comparison, while at the more affordable end of the market, the decision-making process is different.

"There, trust can matter more than technical comparisons," he says. "Ratings, reviews, brand reputation, and recommendations from friends or family are often more influential than specs alone."

"That tells us something important about where the category is today," he concludes. "As robot vacuums become more mainstream, people are evaluating them less like gadgets and more like long-term home appliances."

(Image credit: Future)

So robot vacuums are getting smarter, customers are starting to embrace the modern advancements now on offer, and brands are working to address the pain-points that still linger when it comes to using a robovac in a real, messy, haphazard home.

The fact that people are viewing their robot vacuums as investment purchases rather than short-lived impulse purchases suggests things are moving in the right direction. Perhaps we will yet see a future where, when we see a robot vacuum in the corner of a room, it'll no longer be worthy of comment.

GMKtec has just launched the Evo-X1 Pro, a premium AI-focused mini PC built around AMD's new Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 chip, 64GB LPDDR5 RAM, with an OCuLink port that lets you bolt on a full desktop GPU when you need more graphics power. To mark the new release, readers in the US and the UK can save on the launch price with this Early Bird discount.

The 1TB Evo-X1 Pro is now $1580 (was $1600), while the 2TB model is $1750 (was $1770). Meanwhile, in the UK, the GMKtec Evo X1-Pro 1TB drops to £1230 (was £1250), with the 2TB config running to £1360 (was £1380).

I'm particularly excited because the previous model proved to be an incredible powerhouse that scored 4.5 stars in our review - and I reckon this upgrade is going to be an even bigger beast.

Today's top GMKtec mini PC deal

Built around AMD's Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (12 cores, 24 threads, boosting to 5.2GHz) with Radeon 890M integrated graphics and a dedicated NPU rated up to 55 TOPS. This configuration comes with 64GB of LPDDR5X-6400 memory and a 1TB PCIe 4.0 SSD, with a second M.2 slot free for expansion. A 2TB config is also on sale.

In the UK: now £1230 (was £1250)

Offer ends August 15View Deal

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 is a Zen 5-based chip with 12 cores and 24 threads, 24MB of L3 cache, and boost speeds up to 5.2GHz — a step up from the mid-range mini PCs we usually see in this category.

It pairs that with AMD's XDNA 2 NPU, which GMKtec rates at up to 55 TOPS on its own, or up to 86 TOPS when combined with the rest of the system, aimed at running local AI models and LLM workloads directly on the machine rather than in the cloud.

Graphics come from AMD's Radeon 890M, based on RDNA 3.5 with 16 compute units — enough for mainstream AAA gaming at moderate settings without a discrete card.

The standout feature here is the OCuLink port, a PCIe 4.0 x4 connection that lets you attach an external desktop GPU when you want considerably more graphics performance for gaming or GPU-accelerated AI and creative work. GMKtec notes OCuLink doesn't support hot-swapping, so any external GPU needs to be connected or disconnected with the system powered off.

Memory tops out at 64GB of LPDDR5X-6400, and storage is handled by dual M.2 2280 PCIe 4.0 x4 slots supporting up to 8TB combined, so there's real room to grow beyond the 1TB or 2TB the machine ships with.

GMKtec is pairing this hardware with what it calls an Arctic Cooling System — a dual-fan setup with a dedicated CPU cooler, a separate system fan, dual air intakes, and dust-resistant construction, designed to keep the machine both cool and quiet during sustained AI or gaming workloads.

Connectivity is generous for the category: up front you get USB4, two USB-A 3.2 Gen2 ports, the OCuLink port, and a 3.5mm audio jack, while the rear adds HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 2.1, and two more USB-A 3.2 Gen2 ports. Triple-display output is supported at up to 8K resolution. Networking covers dual 2.5GbE LAN and Wi-Fi 7, which should comfortably outpace most home and small-office setups.

Worth flagging before you buy: this is a brand-new launch, so there are no independent reviews yet to verify GMKtec's performance and AI TOPS figures - although the previous model impressed us throughout our testing (you can read the review here).

And while the Radeon 890M handles mainstream gaming reasonably well, you'll need to add an external GPU over OCuLink for serious 1440p or 4K gaming performance.

For anyone wanting a compact desktop that can run local AI workloads today and take a discrete GPU down the line, the Evo-X1 Pro is a genuinely interesting new option.

• US: See all mini PC deals at GMKtec
• UK: See all Evo mini PCs at GMKtec

The Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus is a speaker that requires no introduction. It’s a truly iconic model, and there really is nothing else on the market that looks quite like it.

With its mollusk-like build, tapered damping tubes and exceptional sound, it's no wonder that Bowers & Wilkins proudly announces it as “the last wish” of co-founder John Bowers. And even though the Nautilus launched all the way back in 1993, it's still being produced to this day.

During my time at the High End Vienna show earlier this year, I got a chance to check out the B&W Nautilus for myself, and got to learn more about its weird and wonderful design. I even had the chance to speak with Bowers & Wilkins’ Product Marketing Director, Andy Kerr, about why people keep coming back to the speaker, even 33 years down the line — and you may be surprised by just how popular it still is…

Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus: an introduction

(Image credit: Future)

For the uninitiated, the Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus is a floor-standing loudspeaker that boasts a striking spiral design and tapered tubes, resulting in one of the most unique looking models that money can buy. But despite its off-the-wall appearance, its design is very much rooted in utility.

Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus specs at a glance

Price: $110,000 / £100,000 (per pair) in standard colorways
Dimensions: 47.6 x 16.9 x 43.5 inches / 1210 x 430 x 1105mm
Weight: 190.7lbs / 86.5kg
Design philosophy: 4-way tube-loaded loudspeaker
Speaker drivers: 1x 300mm (12 inch) aluminum cone bass; 1x 100mm (4 inch) aluminum/polymer sandwich cone lower midrange; 1x 50mm (2 inch) aluminum dome upper midrange; 1x 25mm (1 inch) aluminum dome high-frequency
Frequency range: -6dB at 10Hz and 25kHz

Kerr explained to me that, in essence, the speaker attempts to create the impression of drive units “hanging in free air,” operating without the typical restrictions of a traditional cabinet or enclosure.

While B&W still decided to harness the “pressurization benefits of some form of an enclosure,” he said, there was an active effort to remove the audibility of the box — something that was achieved by using the tapered tubes that the Nautilus is still known for.

“Each tube increases in length relative to the size of the drive unit,” said Kerr. “So you've got a relatively small one for the upper tweeter, slightly longer still for the lower mid, and then this [tube for the bass section] is three meters long but kind of swirled up”.

As the driver operates, pressure dissipates into the Nautilus' tubes — which are also padded with “an absorbent wadding material” — eliminating rearward reflections and drastically reducing distortion while capturing that sense of the driver operating in free space. “It's one of the best loudspeakers you'd hear at disappearing.”

And while he accepts that the Nautilus may not be suited for a studio environment in the same way that the Bowers & Wilkins 801 D5 are, Kerr states, “As an experiment for reducing the audibility of a loudspeaker, it’s perfect”.

The legacy lives on

(Image credit: Future)So what's with the name?

What does Nautilus even mean? Well, it’s a cephalopod (meaning it's related to octopuses and squid, for instance), with a spiral-shaped shell. It uses jet propulsion to traverse the ocean depths, and its name (from Greek nautilos) means ‘sailor’. The more you know, eh?

The ingenious design and sound of the Nautilus has remained, and Kerr notes that many people still purchase the speaker to this day. In fact, so many people are interested in having a Nautilus of their own that there are years' worth of backorders.

I was told that B&W is still producing approximately 50 pairs a year for sale — pretty impressive given that each individual pair takes around 31 days to make, all meticulously done by hand.

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

Audio enthusiasts can grab a pair of Nautilus speakers in the standard colorways — Black, Midnight Blue, and Silver — for a sum typically in the $110,000 or £100,000 ballpark. But there’s a slightly more expensive alternative, one that’s proved very popular with buyers: a custom option.

That’s right, for around £120,000 (US pricing was not shared), you can order the Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus with special paint, and get the speaker in just about any color imaginable. I was shown a handful of customer photos, and there were some exceptional finishes to behold, including McLaren Orange, Ferrari Red, and Minty Green variants, only adding to the unique nature of the Nautilus.

As things stand, there are three years — yes, three years — of backorders. Even though the Nautilus is a speaker like no other, the sheer volume of interest is seriously impressive all of these years later.

There are few games as eagerly anticipated as Control Resonant, Remedy Entertainment's upcoming action-adventure RPG. After all, we've endured a long wait since 2019's Control introduced us to the Lynchian world of the red-hued Hiss and the Federal Bureau of Control.

The good news is that the wait is nearly over — because Resonant arrives in less than two months. And the really good news is that it looks great; so great, in fact, that we gave it one of our Best of Summer Games Fest awards.

So, what will the sequel bring to the table to stand out from its predecessor in a notable way? After playing a lengthy two-hour preview of Control Resonant recently, I had a chance to speak with the lead gameplay designer, Sergey Mohov, and put that question to him, among others.

Melee masterpiece

(Image credit: Remedy Entertainment)

Unsurprisingly, combat is the centerpiece in Resonant, just as it was in the original. In that game, you played as Jesse Faden, equipped with a trusty shapeshifting handgun and tasked with finding her brother, Dylan — who is now the main character in Resonant.

You could unlock several different ammo types that would essentially act as different gun types: shotgun, automatic machine gun, grenade launcher, and so on. Those were joined by various powers, some of which allowed players to levitate or hurl objects at enemies.

In Resonant, Remedy seeks to double down on that combat-heavy gamplay, but specifically with melee, using a shapeshifting weapon, the Aberrant, and other supernatural abilities. The result reminds me of the best hack-and-slash games, such as Capcom's Devil May Cry 5.

Despite my hack-and-slash comparisons, though, Resonant's combat was developed mostly with its predecessor in mind, and that's what both the preview build and Mohov's answers make clear right away.

"We actually have a pretty long and eclectic list of references, and they're not all video games," Mohov says. "If I had to name one game that this game [Resonant] is trying to be like, it would be the original Control. That's our number one reference for everything.

"With our creative director, we started figuring out what makes Control, Control? That was a big question, because we wanted to make a sequel that is spiritually and experientially similar to the first game, so it still feels like a Control game. But we also wanted to have more of this melee-focused, in-your-face, aggressive gameplay at the same time."

(Image credit: Remedy Entertainment)

While Resonant's structure and identity draw primarily from Control, Mohov stresses that the Remedy team also wasn't shy about incorporating elements from other games as well.

"We use references for the individual parts of the experience. I'm a big fan of DMC 2 and DMC 3, and PlatinumGames' titles. It's really hard to name one single reference, but I think if you play the game more, you'll notice that there are things that have been done in other games, but I don't think you can directly say Resonant is 'exactly like this other thing.'

"We learn lessons from all of these other projects to see what works and what doesn't, but I think you probably haven't played anything that is exactly like this."

Admittedly, the first Control was a game that I couldn't stick with throughout its runtime, mostly due to its somewhat convoluted storyline and combat being limited to Jesse Faden's shapeshifting gun.

(Image credit: Remedy Entertainment)

Mohov confirms that the "core experience" in Resonant should be around "30 hours", while the completionist experience is expected to be within the "50 hours" ballpark.

That means it'll be longer than the first game, but with the impressive RPG elements on display, and with numerous weapon and skill types to choose from, it's an even more appealing experience than before — and one that doesn't require a full playthrough of the first entry.

"I don't think you have to play the first Control game to play Resonant," says Mohov, "but if you do, it will enrich your experience, especially narratively. We put in a Control recap, right at the top of the main menu, though, so you don't need to [play it]."

Walking away from my two-hour playtest and conversation with Mohov, I'm more convinced than ever that Remedy's step into a full melee-focused Control experience is going to pay off, and I can't wait to get my hands on it when it launches on September 24, on PS5, Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S, and PC.

It's no secret that AI technology is advancing faster than it can be regulated, with some execs now even saying so themselves. But it seems anything which threatens the advancement of AI must be avoided, in fear of that always present and ever dangerous ‘other’.

The latest installment of ‘please, dear God, slow down before it gets too dangerous’ comes in the form of Pacing the Frontier. Thousands of staff from frontier AI companies once again pleading for a halt in the development of AI technology.

It's all too predictable that the reason from the top for continuing development will be that China ‘threatens’ to catch up. China deploying advanced AI in the military, or in the police, or using it for spying are the threats most often cited, as if these same things aren’t happening at home and around the rest of the world.

So now that China is distilling US AI models to produce rivals at a cheaper cost, I play my tiny violin - the hypocrisy of intellectual property rights suddenly becoming important to AI companies because they could lose money is comical.

Respect my rights

The rights AI companies are citing are the same rights AI companies may have inadvertently violated in hoovering up public data to train their models in the first place, but that's still up for debate.

But AI companies can claim that this trove of public data is a trade secret as a way to prevent human creators from accessing AI training data to see (and possibly prove) that their content has been stolen. Rights for me but not for thee.

What I find funny is that the average American has more in common with the average Chinese person than they do with an AI company. Does an AI company enjoy cooking? Drawing or reading? Can it go out after work for a hot drink or a cold beer? Does it worry that if it doesn’t make any money this month everything might come crashing down? Possibly the last one.

Somehow the bond of national identity tied between a person and a corporate entity is expected to be more powerful than shared human experience. It’s also the bond that AI companies and those in power use to press the accelerator on the machine, just so long as we, the ‘good guys’, are ‘winning’.

Beware the ‘bad guys’

This myth of the external ‘other’, or the ‘bad guys’, is a powerful propaganda tool. But it only works in a vacuum. If you can directly engage with those you are told are your enemy and you find they are not so different from yourself, the myth of the ‘other’ evaporates. (Social media and the internet is a double edged sword in this regard, but that's a discussion for another time).

So if Chinese companies can produce a rival product that doesn’t annihilate a monthly token budget in a matter of days, I say let them. If you are worried about China having your data, are you not worried about who is currently collecting it? If you are worried about China deploying AI systems in the military, police, surveillance, and cybersecurity, are you not worried about it happening closer to home?

The warning that using Chinese AI models is dangerous because they can steal your business secrets is especially weak, especially when you consider Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s warning that US AI companies are already doing exactly that, and selling it to your competition.

So the next time an AI company complains about their intellectual property being stolen, remember that it is just the great, ever-turning wheel of innovation. Or if you are warned about the data collection policies of a foreign AI model, check the policies of the tech closer to home. You’d be surprised at just how much they already know about you.

Trust your VPN software updates keep you safe? Believe that downloading the latest release protects you from most known threats?

You might be surprised to learn that there could be a set of invisible vulnerabilities lurking inside your state-of-the-art VPN. That's because more than half of Windows VPNs we analyzed include OpenVPN code that hasn’t been updated in over a year — potentially leaving you exposed to a wide range of security and performance threats.

OpenVPN is a protocol that determines how data is encrypted and routed between a user's device and a VPN server. Thanks to its open-source status, it became the industry's de facto standard, serving as the foundation for many commercial VPN services.

Because OpenVPN is developed as a separate open-source project, however, VPN providers often update their apps while leaving the bundled OpenVPN component unchanged. New interfaces, bug fixes, and major features may arrive regularly, but the code responsible for the fundamental VPN connection may be severely out of date.

Cracking the kernel

This July, we audited 32 Windows VPN clients ranging from established, multinational companies to smaller, older and free apps, to check the OpenVPN version included in their latest release.

The results were shocking. A massive 56% (18 of 32) use an OpenVPN version that is more than a year old, 41% (14) use configurations that are over two years old, 22% (7) rely on code more than four years old. And a terrifying 12.5% (4) use code that is at least five years old.

Not all providers were equal. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the best VPNs — including NordVPN, Windscribe and Proton VPN — use OpenVPN releases as recent as April 2026. At the other end of the scale, Turbo VPN and VyprVPN continue to use OpenVPN 2.4.7 from April 2019.

It might seem logical that companies with greater commercial resources are the ones investing more into keeping the app's codebase up to date. But having significantly older versions of the OpenVPN protocol raises significant privacy and security concerns regardless.

A variety of hidden risks

So is this really a big deal?

Marijus Briedis, CTO at NordVPN, tells TechRadar: “Because OpenVPN — like any project — regularly patches vulnerabilities, hardens its codebase, and improves performance, running a version that’s years behind might miss security components that current up-to-date versions offer.”

Jason Xu, senior app developer at Windscribe, argues that previously disclosed vulnerabilities could actually be more serious, precisely because they have been documented. “An attacker doesn’t even need to find a new bug; they can just read the changelog,” he notes.

Indeed, OpenVPN regularly releases Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs): six vulnerabilities were registered in 2025, six in 2024, one in 2023, and one in 2022. This means providers with older versions likely did not adopt the upstream releases containing those fixes.

Of course, the risks have nuances. Running an older version does not necessarily mean an application is vulnerable to every newly discovered flaw. For example, if an older build does not include a feature which later caused a vulnerability, it is unaffected.

Briedis stressed that security can be maintained through other means, including backported patches, vendor fixes, configuration mitigations and/or removing vulnerable functions. However, he said the real concern is when none of those measures are in place and when there’s no visibility into whether they are.

The issues involved can be broad and numerous. Outdated dependencies, like running an older version of OpenSSL, are just some of the potential issues.

There is also a broader maintenance cost. According to Dr. Peter Membrey, Chief Research Officer at ExpressVPN, older versions can become increasingly difficult to integrate with current operating systems and cryptographic libraries. “Being several years behind can indicate a growing body of security, compatibility, and operational debt,” he says.

Ultimately, “the further behind you fall, the harder each upgrade gets,” Xu adds. “That’s the trap. Nobody decides to be five years behind; they just keep saying ‘next quarter’”.

A question of stack

Adopting a new OpenVPN release is a fundamental change requiring compatibility testing across platforms, regression checks, staged rollouts, and validation that nothing breaks in the software stack — a process which often takes months to complete.

Because of that, VPN providers say they are not obliged to adopt every upstream release.

NortonVPN, which is in the process of moving to the cutting-edge OpenVPN version at the moment, explains that each update needs to be assessed and tested carefully to make sure it delivers clear benefits without introducing stability, performance, or compatibility issues for customers.

Indeed, Karolis Kaciulis, Leading System Engineer at Surfshark, agrees that a six-to-18-month delay can be reasonable provided critical vulnerabilities are addressed promptly.

Some VPN providers whose updates date back more than two years have cited specific reasons to justify the delay.

StrongVPN, for example, states that work on its proprietary internal protocol has postponed the planned update to OpenVPN 2.7. Meanwhile, ClearVPN claims to ensure security by applying its own security patches.

Finally, PureVPN states that it is staying with OpenVPN 2.6.12 because it has developed custom technologies based on that version and because OpenVPN 2.7 removes support for the Wintun driver.

Time to DIY

So what can you do? Is it time to shun anyone not using the most recent version of OpenVPN?

Not necessarily. Many providers now use newer protocols like WireGuard by default, which generally benefit from more active maintenance.

In fact, several providers are in the process of phasing out OpenVPN support for faster, more agile protocols.

Proton VPN is one of the providers keeping pace, running one of the most recent OpenVPN builds on its Windows app. However, a spokesperson said that over time, the company "will start to phase out OpenVPN support in our client apps" while retaining the protocol on servers for legacy routers and older devices.

The spokesperson also noted that the protocol is "slow and bloated" in comparison to Proton VPN's Stealth and WireGuard protocols, though OpenVPN remains "robustly secure."

So whether you're using an app with the latest OpenVPN configuration or not, it might be worth switching protocols anyway.

But if you really want to know, you can audit your VPN by checking the client settings, diagnostic logs, or official release notes to confirm which version of OpenVPN your provider is using and when it was last updated.

A key red flag is protocol dependencies that are more than 12 to 18 months old without a documented security or compatibility reason as it may suggest that critical security updates have been delayed.

If you're still unsure, you can always contact your VPN provider's support team to receive more transparent info about timelines for protocol updates and security patches.

Ultimately, the risk to your security may well be limited. However, in the world of VPNs — where attention to detail in regards to security is the currency of providers — one might well ask: “Why not simply support the latest and most secure option?”

Why not indeed…

Though attack vectors and threat environments have changed since the advent of the internet, one thing has remained a constant – humans use software, and software has predefined parameters.

That distinction is exactly why social engineering remains so effective. Cybercriminals exploit predictable weaknesses in human behavior, granting them accesss to accounts and other sensitive information.

For the first time ever, that long-standing assumption is being turned on its head. In today's increasingly autonomous world, AI agents can take action on behalf of humans, creating an entirely new class of attack vectors that target machine autonomy rather than human weaknesses.

The boundary between software and user is getting really, really blurry

The purpose of an agent isn't just to retrieve information or wait for a human's approval – its responsibilities can include interpreting objectives, developing plans, choosing tools, accessing data autonomously and taking actions. In short, agentic AI bridges both software and user.

This doesn't make everything we know about software and SaaS security obsolete, but it does mean that many of the assumptions underpinning today's controls are no longer sufficient. Humans will continue to use conventional software, but alongside agentic workflows, leaving organizations responsible for security both types of environment.

Thankfully, the fundamentals remain – least privilege, strong authentication and separation of duties will all be central to the next wave of cybersecurity. What will change, though, is how those principles will be applied to agents, which don't behave as software or human users.

AI agents need identities of their own

The first requirement is to stop treating agents like features hidden inside applications, or software in their own right. An enterprise agent should actually have a first-class identity just like any other human colleague.

This means AI agents should have unique identities, named owners (line managers), clearly defined purposes and specific permissions. But they should also have their own lifecycles akin to software, such as creation dates, review points and expiry dates.

"Expiry dates or periodic recertification are important because agents can otherwise become long-lived access paths that are harder to govern than human users," Zendesk Chief Security Officer Vinay Patel explained to me in an exclusive interview.

At the end of the day, these are the sorts of controls that already exist for human users because organizations already understand the risks of unmanaged access, due to role changes or company departures, for example.

Without treating AI agents as users in their own right, companies risk accumulating abandoned agents, stored credentials and even data access paths whose original business purposes may have disappeared – an unthinkable consequence for humans, so one that should be treated just as severely for AI agents.

Human-in-the-loop automation is the future

Importantly, AI agents don't just occupy one space. They can act autonomously, be commissioned on a task-by-task basis by a human user, or operate somewhere between the two. Patel told me that an "audit trail should preserve both identities: the human who initiated or authorized the action and the agent that executed it."

For fully autonomous agents, a log tying them back to their "owner, purpose, and approved policy" is still just as important.

But of course, it all boils down to flawless visibility and effective management. "Companies need inventory and discovery across the places agents can be created or embedded, including SaaS platforms, internal automation tools, development environments, and third-party integrations," Patel added.

Organizations must monitor not only which agents are deployed, but whether their permissions and behavior remain aligned with their original business purposes.

Recent NIST research raises many of the same priorities, including verifiable records of agent actions, intent, data sources and generated output. But while NIST is developing guidance around agent adoption, visibility, control and accountability, agents are already being deployed, and often without the necessary safeguards.

Traditional IAM falls short

A separate Cloud Security Alliance paper concluded, "traditional identity and access management (IAM) protocols, designed for static applications and human users, can’t keep up."

The researchers argue that credentials and permissions should be task-specific, short-lived and easily revokable, unlike human identities which are generally set for the duration of their employment contracts.

The CSA also recommends applying zero-trust principles by treating agent compromise as a credible possibility. By enforcing least privilege, isolating systems and continuously verifying access, organizations can limit the potential consequences of an attack or misconfiguration as they adapt to this new security environment.

Accountability starts before deployment

Patel says that, "accountability should not collapse onto a single party by default." It's as much the responsibility of adopters as it is lawmakers, and even end users.

Key to understanding vulnerabilities and potential risks is identifying where the failure occurred: "user’s instruction, the agent owner’s governance, the developer’s design, the platform provider’s controls, or the enterprise’s deployment model."

Above all else, Zendesk's Chief Security Officer argues that "accountability must be defined before deployment, not reconstructed after an incident."

In the short term, this work could slow AI adoption as companies address controls that might've been overlooked during early, informal experimentation. The danger arises when a successful pilot actual progresses into production without pausing to define ownership, permissions and other policies.

Before scaling agent deployments, organizations should pause other ensure the right foundations are in place. Governance becomes much harder to retrofit once an agent has actually been embedded.

Preparing for the autonomous workforce

The question is no longer how, or even whether, AI agents will become part of the enterprise – it's about how employers can establish the necessary controls before they're more common than human workers.

The most valuable security investments today focus on visibility, control, accountability and governance, not forgetting over investments tech admins are making across data foundations and interoperability.

But thankfully, none of this requires a business to abandon the security principles it's spent decades developing. All it requires is for leaders to extend and reframe these for the agentic world.

The future enterprise will combine the human-software environment we already know with a new end-to-end agentic layer – neither one of these will replace the other. Companies preparing for this new hybrid will see the greatest returns.

Light spoilers follow for Spider-Man: Brand New Day.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day was meant to signal a fresh era for Tom Holland’s Peter Parker. With 2021’s Spider-Man: No Way Home effectively clearing the narrative slate and stripping away his safety net, this latest chapter had a golden opportunity to chart a bold, unburdened new course for a character whose cinematic journey now enters its 24th year.

And yet, tripped up by familiar Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) shortcomings and weighed down by my own sky-high expectations, Brand New Day yields a final product that is undeniably fun, but ultimately falls short of greatness.

Web of lies

"What's going on with you, Spider-Man?" (Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

Four years have passed in-universe since No Way Home, whose ending saw Doctor Strange cast a multiverse-saving spell to make everyone, including Parker's girlfriend M.J. (Zendaya) and best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), forget that he was Spider-Man.

Since then, our friendly neighborhood hero has fully committed to cleaning up the streets of New York City. While that mission has been incredibly successful, it's come at a cost — that being said, the webslinger is practically shedding his civilian identity and becoming a social recluse.

Brand New Day yields a final product that is undeniable fun, but ultimately falls short of greatness

That long-term, self-imposed isolation has seemingly dire consequences for Spider-Man, whose world is not only upended after he sees M.J. with a new man, but also by a sudden metamorphosis — one that super-charges his arachnid-like abilities — that he struggles to control.

Throw in the emergence of a powerful and invisible new threat that only Spidey can apparently stop, and the Marvel icon must turn detective, determine if this new superpowered being is as bad as he's been led to believe, and once again realize that with great power comes great responsibility.

Brand New Day's action is well worth the entry fee (Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

That infamous slogan is one that Holland and director Destin Daniel Cretton hung their proverbial hats on throughout development.

The pair have spoken at length about making a Spider-Man movie unlike anything we've seen before, and that's especially true from an action spectacle standpoint. Whether it's the fights that Spidey's involved in — the Hulk and The Hand battles deserve special mention for being intense and imaginative — or simply giving us a first-person view of him swinging through his hometown, Spider-Man 4 is the webslinger at his acrobatic, wily, and inventive best. Full credit to Cretton, stunt co-ordinator and second unit director Peng Zhang, and his team for delivering some of the best action in a Spider-Man film to date.

I was disappointed that Spider-Man 4 didn't examine Parker's hermit lifestyle more thoroughly

Brand New Day isn't as adept at depicting loneliness and other mental health issues, mind you. Indeed, for all of the talk that Brand New Day puts Peter Parker in a mental and emotional echo chamber, that's not entirely accurate.

Sure, Parker spends much of the first two acts lying to himself about why he has to maintain his lone wolf status, a storytelling quirk that allows Holland to further tap into Parker's guilt complex and the volitional burden of responsibility he carries. Even so, he still interacts — and characteristically quips — with everyone who appears in the Marvel Phase 6 flick, and, while it would be a puzzlingly dialog-light film for a usually extroverted character if he didn't, I was disappointed that Spider-Man 4 didn't examine Parker's hermit lifestyle more thoroughly throughout its 142-minute runtime.

M.J. and Ned have slightly smaller rolls in Spider-Man 4 compared to their previous MCU film outings (Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

In fact, the movie's broader emotional impact didn't hit me as hard as I'd hoped.

Yes, there are myriad moving moments — particularly in the third act — where Holland, Zendaya, and MCU newcomer Sadie Sink deliver emotional gravitas aplenty. Sink, whose much-discussed mystery character in Spider-Man 4 I’ll come back to shortly, gives a performance that easily leaves a lump in the throat

Nevertheless, Thunderbolts* tackles its weightier themes — particularly around mental health — with a sensitivity that Spider-Man 4 lacks. Heck, I'd even say No Way Home and another of Holland's previous MCU outings in Spider-Man: Far From Home hit me much harder emotionally than this fourth entry; a take I certainly didn't expect to have prior to my Brand New Day screening.

Lost souls

Spider-Man and The Punisher's crowd-pleasing odd-couple dynamic is a sight to behold (Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

Its action notwithstanding, Spider-Man: Brand New Day does a much better job at making New York feel like a city populated by more than one hero and villain at any given time.

It's no coincidence that sequences involving Bernthal and Holland are some of the funniest and most memorable

That might sound silly for a shared universe like the MCU and for a film franchise that's seen the wallcrawler mingle with other Marvel characters. Still, the fact that he shares the screen with individuals who haven't operated in his orbit before is a positive, especially when, the Avengers movies aside, Marvel appears determined to keep its heroes apart despite their situational proximity.

It's an ingredient characterized best by Spider-Man's quarrelsome, sibling-like dynamic with Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, aka The Punisher.

Ordinarily, Bernthal's foul-mouthed, unhinged anti-hero would have no place in a family-friendly MCU flick. However, his inclusion in Brand New Day allows Bernthal and Holland's incredibly natural chemistry to shine, and it's no coincidence that sequences involving the pair are some of the funniest and most memorable that Spider-Man 4 has to offer.

Test yourself with our Tom Holland Spider-Man movie quiz!

Think of yourself as a Tom Holland Spidey super-fan? See if you have what it takes to be crowned by the best of the best by tackling our extremely tough Tom Holland Spider-Man movie quiz!

The film’s self-contained, 'pick-up-and-read' comic book vibe further extends to Spider-Man: Brand New Day's full cast of characters.

Returning favorites like Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/The Hulk alongside newcomers in Tramell Tillman's Bill Metzger and Liza Colón-Zayas' Jean DeWolff add to its narrative flavor. However, its overstuffed roster leaves a slight aftertaste as few of them get the necessary development or screentime they require.

Who are you under the hood, Ms. Sink? (Image credit: Sony Pictures/Marvel Entertainment)

Among the supporting cast, Sink gets the most substantial character arc. Brand New Day waits until the 70-minute mark to finally confirm who she's playing, but it compensates for the inevitable reveal by soon putting the Stranger Things alumnus at the heart of its tale, albeit with mixed results.

On the upside, Spider-Man 4 thoughtfully draws parallels between Holland and Sink's characters. Driven by opposing worldviews rooted in personal tragedy, their dichotomous dynamic fuels the second act, and I'll readily admit I was completely engrossed by their superhuman tango.

I was completely engrossed by Holland and Sink's superhuman tango

The problem that Brand New Day runs into is that, by placing Sink at its narrative center, it quickly succumbs to the classic MCU pitfall: setting up future storylines instead of concentrating on its actual protagonist.

Indeed, by act three, Spidey becomes something of a passenger in his own film, and it isn't until its admittedly poignant climax that the focus shifts back to the wallcrawler. That's no slight on the talented Sink's performance, but, not for the first time, it's hard to watch another Spider-Man solo movie and not think that the titular hero has, at times, been overshadowed in his own story.

My verdict

From a recency bias viewpoint, it would be easy — and arguably lazy — to label Brand New Day as the best Spider-Man movie of all-time.

In some ways, you can argue that's true. This is the most relatable Peter Parker has ever felt in a live-action capacity; it ditches the weary multiversal shenanigans in favor of returning to the character's classic street-level roots, and is Holland's most mature outing yet as the legendary webslinger.

That said, while its ending strikes an optimistic note for an all-but-confirmed fifth solo film, Brand New Day is an ironic title for a movie that — much like its protagonist for large parts of this flick — refuses to move on from the past. Its sentimental attachment to legacy characters like Ned and M.J., paired with obstructive MCU world-building, reveals a franchise that hesitates to be as progressive as it could and should be. It’s an endlessly entertaining, ground-level Spider-Man story — it just can’t quite bring itself to let that brand new day truly dawn.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is out now in the UK, and hits theaters in the US and other regions on Friday, July 31.

Everything seems to cost more in 2026, and website builders are no exception.

In the past five years, we have seen the likes of Wix, Squarespace, and Shopify shift from simple building and hosting tools into full-blown hubs for launching and growing your business. We've seen new tools, features, and AI integrations hitting the market in a bid to win the battle of the best website builders.

But with innovation comes expense, and that gets passed onto the customer.

This isn't a surprise, but at a time where everything seems to be making a bigger dent in our bank balance, large, unforeseen price rises can be hard to stomach, which is why some Squarespace customers are feeling upset – I set out to find out more.

Squarespace price increases

(Image credit: Reddit)

One Squarespace user reported an over 60% increase in their subscription fee between 2021 and 2026, taking their annual cost from $216 to $348 and posting on Reddit that they “feel like I’m paying for things I sincerely did not ask for, the biggest thing being AI.”

Of course, price increases are to be expected as the cost of providing a service also goes up. Plus, it’s common not to use each and every feature of platforms that we subscribe to.

So, what’s the problem?

Well, most of us can stomach paying a couple more dollars for features we don’t use, especially when the features we do use are great. But when those features cost anywhere from $20 to $60 a year, it's easy to start questioning whether it’s worth it.

Squarespace also had to send an apology email following a ‘pricing implementation error’ affecting certain plans, meaning some customers received a higher increase than intended. However, according to Squarespace, no customer was incorrectly charged as a result, and those impacted have been contacted.

So, to summarize. Prices are up, but not as much as Squarespace initially told us – that’s one way to soften the blow, I guess.

Is this really an issue?

A lot goes into how much website builders charge for subscriptions and, as we all know, basically everything has gotten more expensive recently. However, it seems strange to me that Squarespace doesn’t offer more transparency and certainty around upcoming price increases.

Let me be clear: I want to see platforms continue to roll out tools that help small businesses grow themselves online. But I’d also like to see them better recognize that at least a large proportion of their audience are entrepreneurs, solopreneurs, and hobbyists who find it difficult to absorb hefty price rises.

In fact, Squarespace started life targeting creatives such as photographers and artists, giving them the tools they need to create high-impact portfolios online. Many long-term customers likely still fit into this category, although as Squarespace has evolved, they may feel forgotten about.

I am confident that an increase in subscription costs is primarily rooted in increased operational costs. However, increasing prices so much beyond inflation and failing to properly communicate additional value seems like an odd strategy in an industry that is facing more competition than ever.

In fairness, it is certainly a hard thing for website builders to balance.

• Fail to develop the platform, and users feel they are paying for a tool that is no longer relevant
• Invest in development, but charge more, and users feel the financial burden
• Change your pricing model, charging extra for every feature, and users become fatigued by piling costs.

How does Squarespace pricing compare?

I compared Squarespace's 2025 to 2026 price increase to two of its closest competitors, Wix and Shopify. You can look at the results in two ways.

Firstly, this is clearly a significant jump. Across four plans, Squarespace has increased the price of three by 18% to 25%, although existing customers may see smaller increases. In comparison, Wix has only increased the price of one plan from 2025 to 2026 by around 8%, and Shopify hasn't increased any.

This certainly seems significant.

However, if you step back and look at the bigger picture, Squarespace subscriptions are roughly comparable* with others in the same space. Its entry-level plan now costs just $7/year more than Wix’s equivalent plan.

It gives you more too, allowing you to sell online with its Basic ($19/mo) plan. You have to pay a minimum of $29/mo with both Wix and Shopify to do that.

Of course, comparing plans isn't apples to apples, with each provider offering access to different tools and features at each subscription tier.

What does Squarespace say?

We are continually investing in our platform to help customers build and grow their businesses.

Squarespace representative

I reached out to Squarespace to get some insight into why subscriptions have increased so significantly.

"We understand that cost is an important consideration for small business owners, and we don't take pricing changes lightly” a Squarespace representative told me.

“We recently added to every website plan capabilities previously available only on higher-tier plans or through third-party services, and we are continually investing in our platform to help customers build and grow their businesses."

It makes sense. Platforms like Squarespace have to invest in improving the tools and features they offer, or they get left behind. Those costs get passed onto the user.

Yet ‘we’ve added more to your plan’ is likely little reassurance to the Reddit user that already feels they are paying more for tools they don’t use. So what can they do?

What can you do about price rises?

(Image credit: Squarespace/Edited with Gemini)

I’ve fallen into this trap before, and it sucks.

You have an essential website that costs you more each year, but you aren’t getting anything more from it. Then you are left with a difficult choice. Do you stick where you are and just absorb costs? Or do you look to migrate to a different platform?

This is the dilemma I faced with my personal website in 2025. I felt like I was spending a small fortune with Wix to keep my simple one-page website live. In the end, I moved it to Hostinger; you can read about how I got on with it here.

Spoiler: it saved me $168 a year, but I had to build my site again from scratch.

Although it comes too late for the Reddit user and for me, the advice I would give someone in a similar situation is to better understand what you need from a website builder before subscribing.

All too often we opt for the likes of Wix and Squarespace for convenience, and although that shouldn’t be undervalued, it comes at the price of being locked into a platform and at the mercy of future price rises.

The likes of Wix and Squarespace have developed in recent years from true website builders (with hosting built in) into full business platforms with features ranging from invoicing and bookings to integrations with dropshippers. To get good value for money, you need to be using at least some of these additional features.

That is exactly why I use Wix to run my small martial arts gym. I use the scheduling tool, ecommerce features, AI writer, pay links, and built-in CRM on a weekly basis. This makes price rises easier to absorb, especially when compared to paying for individual platforms to achieve the same outcome.

Clients would rather pay more for something that keeps getting better than pay less for something standing still.

Miles Noble, Founder of SquareLocator

Platforms like Squarespace can offer a huge range of tools for web-building professionals too.

“For many websites, Squarespace is arguably the best platform on the market, due to its hosting, security and stability. Realistically, a platform cannot keep improving at this pace without costs rising with it,” shares Miles Noble, Founder of SquareLocator and Director of Altitude Design, “Clients would rather pay more for something that keeps getting better than pay less for something standing still.”

Yes, these website builders can be used to build simple, static websites, but you will be paying over the odds.

In this case, a smarter approach may be opting for a web hosting provider that offers a built-in website/page builder. Although you are still subject to price increases, these are generally more affordable and can make migration easier, giving you greater options if you’re ever unhappy.

You could also code your own site, or use an AI tool to code a site for you, then simply pay for hosting. This offers ultimate flexibility and affordability but can also be time-intensive, requires some technical knowledge, and lacks the support you need when things go wrong.

Do website builders charge too much?

Price rises that are so significantly above inflation are a lot for some users to stomach. Although these increases could be the result of rising costs, it would make sense for website builders to give more notice of upcoming increases and better communicate why those price increases have come about.

Website builders like Squarespace are certainly a great option for small businesses and website agencies that will make use of its generous tools and features, but they fail to serve customers looking for a simple website with predictable future costs. They also make it difficult for those customers to migrate their website should they feel the need.

*

Squarespace

Price (annual)

Wix

Price (annual)

Shopify

Price (annual)

Basic

$228

Light

$221

Core

$348

Core

$377

Basic

$348

Plus

$588

Business

$468

Grow

$948

Advanced

$1,188

Business Elite

$1,908

Advanced

$3,887

We called the Ryzen 9 9950X3D the best processor on the market when we tested AMD's flagship CPU, praising its "fantastic overall performance" and near-perfect gaming results. Now, it's hit an all-time low on Amazon.

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D drops to $569 (was $699) when you tick the on-page coupon box. That's the lowest price I've seen at any retailer, beating the previous low of $574 in April.

For creators or gamers building or upgrading an AM5 system who want the fastest all-around desktop CPU on the market, $569 is a genuinely excellent price. Grab it while the coupon's still active.

Today's top AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D deal

A 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 desktop processor with AMD's 3D V-Cache technology, 128MB of combined cache, and boost clocks up to 5.7GHz.

Don't forget to tick the coupon box for the full savings.View Deal

Want to know how well it performed? You can read our full review here.

The 9950X3D is AMD's flagship consumer processor, built around two 8-core chiplets on the Zen 5 architecture, with 3D V-Cache stacked on one of them to boost gaming performance without giving up the multi-core muscle needed for productivity work. In our full review, we found it delivered nearly perfect gaming performance alongside reasonable power draw, making it easier to cool than you might expect from a chip in this performance class.

Sister site Tom's Hardware benchmarked the 9950X3D extensively and found it ran roughly 37% faster than Intel's flagship Core 9 285K on average in 1080p gaming, and about 26% ahead of the older Core i9-14900K. It even matched the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, long considered the go-to gaming chip, in most of their tests — impressive given the 9950X3D packs twice the cores.

Where the 9950X3D pulls ahead of the 9800X3D is multi-threaded work. With double the cores and a 170W TDP ceiling, it has real headroom for video editing, 3D rendering, and other workloads that can spread across 16 cores and 32 threads — making it a genuine all-rounder rather than a gaming-only chip.

This deal is worth acting on quickly if you've been watching the price. The 9950X3D has held close to its $699.99 launch price for most of its life, dipping to a previous low of around $574 earlier this year. At $569, this is the cheapest it has ever been at a major US retailer, and coupon-based deals like this one have a habit of disappearing without notice.

One thing worth knowing before you buy: only 8 of the 16 cores sit on the V-Cache-equipped chiplet, and Windows doesn't always schedule games onto the right cores automatically. AMD's chipset software helps manage this, but it's an extra step compared with a simpler 8-core gaming chip.

If pure gaming performance per dollar is your only priority, the cheaper Ryzen 7 9800X3D is still worth a look — but for anyone who also wants serious multi-core power for productivity or content creation, the 9950X3D is the stronger all-around buy at this price.

• See all CPUs at Amazon

Adding to the existing pressures that data centers face regarding energy supply and grid connections, land shortages and chip availability, many hyperscalers are now facing local opposition to project proposals.

At a congressional hearing earlier this year, US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented two jars of murky water, filled from homes in Morgan County, Georgia, near one of Meta’s data center campuses.

Though Meta has disputed any connection between its construction work and residents’ private wells and water sources, tensions are becoming harder to ignore as the digital world’s physical infrastructure continues to expand.

We are creating our own data center paradox

Enterprise demand for cloud compute and the mass consumer and enterprise consumption of AI have ultimately led to a surge in demand for physical data centers, but they’re now being seen in a similar vein to airports and power stations – physical infrastructure that’s used by nearly all citizens, but projects that nobody actually wants to live by.

And it’s this paradox that many are grappling with at the moment – in this case, residents with a Facebook account can hardly argue against Meta’s need for physical infrastructure, and the same logic applies to users of streaming platforms, ecommerce websites, cloud storage, AI chatbots and so much more.

While International Data Center Authority (IDCA) founder and CEO Mehdi Paryavi believes this digital hypocrisy could afford hyperscalers some justification in their actions, it’s clear that service providers and infrastructure companies are not valuing communication and public engagement enough.

With hyperscalers planning data center buildouts years in advance and chipmakers facing major backlogs, it’s no longer about whether we need extra capacity – rather, it’s about where that compute should reside and how communities are consulted and engaged.

• Should data centres be renamed as data factories instead given that they essentially process data at scale?

Data centers are just fine with their current naming. Data centers come in different sizes and types, fulfilling diverse purposes.

Some produce data and house AI as AI factories, some import and house data from the cloud and enterprise applications, some just serve as internet exchange and telecom shelter, and some just sit on your desk as USB drives and PCs that just house data with the least amenities.

Data centers are more holistic and overarching than data factories, while the latter is easier to understand for the general public. What differentiates data centers from one another is not their sheer size, but rather the type of data they house or process.

Depending on the use case, a small enterprise data center that is home to very sensitive information might prove to be more mission-critical than a large-scale AI data center that manufactures data at scale.

• You mention that if you have a Facebook account, you can’t complain about data centers. I assume that this rings true for all hyperscalers and big cloud services as well. Is there any going back and what can be done to educate users more?

Our Facebook account, Amazon shopping cart, Gmail, iMessage or WhatsApp, Netflix, online banking, Google Maps, YouTube, ChatGPT, will simply cease to exist without data centers.

We are the reason that data centers get built and expanded. Our “consumption” and demand for higher speeds and better quality of service in the utilization of AI and Cloud services and the technological amenities we receive on an ever-evolving and ever-growing basis draw data centers to our communities.

• Speaking of consumers, on the subject of it being digital hypocrisy to describe the paradoxical relationship between the user and the service provider. Can you expand on that further?

When you protest against the expansion of data centers, yet you publicize your protest on social media that are solely enabled through data centers, when you oppose the development of data centers while they offer some of the last standing jobs that can stay for the predictable future, when you push back on the data center industry, when you go home at night and use ChatGPT for your everyday needs, Google for your search, Amazon for your shopping, and Netflix for your entertainment, you are the creator of a paradox between yourself as the end-user and the ultimate beneficiary of what the service providers offer.

• The cordial relationship between data center owners and local communities has given way to something more confrontational. What can Meta and others do to solve the increasing public distrust?

First of all, what companies such as Meta do as the ultimate goal of their companies and what data centers do are two separate conversations, and providers must draw a clear line between the two. If you have issues with the morality of Facebook, or the evolution of AI and the future of tech, your problem shouldn’t be pointing at data centers.

Economically and practically, data centers must be built to keep our economy going and our e-Gov, e-Health, e-Education, and even climate-friendly developments that are results of digital transformation, flowing.

Secondly, if data centers put the grid under stress or depict a shortage of water in certain areas, all fingers should be pointed at policymakers who have failed to invest in our old and fragile infrastructure.

Third, as far as data center owners and operators are concerned, they must allocate a fraction of their revenues to creating awareness, spending time with communities, and investing in the education of the local public they aim to serve and/or live amongst.

Last but not least, communication is key. Anywhere that a provider has initiated talks with the local community and invested in sparking dialog, success was on the horizon, and defensive lines against data centers were not formed by the public.

• What is the biggest misconception - in your view - about data center water usage? And what can be done to set that right?

The biggest misconception is that modern data centers don’t really use much water. But unfortunately, our societies are driven towards assumptions made by either those who are not deeply aware of the true requirements of data centers or careless to substantiate their claims as long as they can provoke emotions and push back on data centers to replace it with some other agenda.

In reality, data centers worldwide use 0.1% of the water available for human use. Modern data centers, which are being built for both AI and cloud applications, have closed-loop cooling that uses no operational water. A brief look at IDCA’s Global Water Stress Index, from its 2026 Data Center Report, will shed some light here.

Looking at the big picture, data centers are essential to developing modern economies. The United States, for example, has by far the largest data center “footprint” in the world and an overall economy that is twice the world average in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that the global economy produces 317 metric tons of CO2 per US$1 million of nominal GDP, while the US produces 156. However, when we start throwing around big numbers, such as "millions of gallons of water per day," it's easy to forget the entire context.

The large new AI centers, as is becoming well known, have "closed-loop" cooling processes that use no operational water. But we think it's important to realize that there are always engineering problems to solve. For example, a new data center may consume electricity provided by nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases. But nuclear energy itself uses large amounts of water.

So, at IDCA, we stress that communities, states, regions, and entire nations need to have as many people engaged as possible to look at these issues in their complexity.

• How realistic would it be to build data centers in specific controlled areas to shield vulnerable neighbourhoods from the full frontal impact of having a gigantic data center next door?

This is an important question. We at the International Data Center Authority (IDCA) believe in master planning the future.

The future that is both feasible and beneficial to nations all over the world is where countries and states plan for well-devised and highly concentrated digital hubs that house AI and cloud workloads.

The benefits of having these hubs planed and future-proofed is that first you take the data centers to environments that are most suitable to house them, secondly you create synergy and economy of scale at these hubs, third, you reduce the cost of compute by ensuring that all the amenities that these data centers need are available on centralized locations in bulk, forth you get the close proximity to the communities that are welcoming or simply create your own community, just like Loudoun County successfully created a whole new community around its data center economy.

The benefits will continue and can be enormous, including from the aspects of national security, where securing a handful of digital hubs is much easier than thousands of random and ad hoc locations during times of tension and conflict, which has become a critical topic in our industry these days.

As it stands today, there are almost always zoning considerations to be considered, so a theoretical "gigantic" data center will not be built right "next door" to residential communities. Even when zoning is not strong in a particular area, data center developers like to acquire enough land to create proper setbacks to mitigate noise, but also to be located where sufficient power can be provided.

So the reality is that large data centers today are already being built in "specific controlled areas," as your question states.

When it comes to getting the right accessories for my home office, I'm usually focused on not only performance, but also comfort. Like many of us, my mouse and keyboard are key parts of my home working set-up, which is spread across a laptop and external monitor, and using them pretty much all day everyday means I need something that is comfortable to use.

So when I saw that Logitech had released a new keyboard and mouse specifically designed around promoting comfort, it seemed like an obvious choice. The company's Signature Comfort Plus line comes with built-in cushioning, which it says can help increase comfort (unsurprisingly) and a better overall user experience.

The MK880 keyboard and M850L mouse are available in a combo bundle, and I've been using both products for a while now - so how did I get on?

Click happy

I've been a fan of Logitech's MX Master mouse range for some time, and the MX Master 4 for Business is still my go-to for everyday use.

The selling point of the new Logitech Signature Comfort Plus M850L wireless mouse is its added cushioning, which the company described as "something we've never done before".

With a declaration like that, you might be expecting some huge extra addition - but the reality is actually quite a bit more low-key.

Like many of you, I'm guessing that when you use a mouse, your hand covers the top of it, with the base of your palm and your wrist laying flat on the tabletop, mouse mat or whatever you choose.

You might think then, that much like its K8880 keyboard, the cushioning would be at the base of the mouse - however this isn't the case, with the cushioned panel actually sitting halfway across the top, just below the scrolling wheel.

Future / Mike MooreFuture / Mike Moore

It's clear to see why Logitech has done this - locating what it calls the "palm cushion" there will help ease RSI or other repetitive finger issues, but for me, where the extra help is needed is further down, at the base, like the keyboard.

The M850L also features a smaller, more sculpted shape than the MX Master series, and has built-in side grips to help improve comfort and again boost usability.

I realize this is a personal view, and it definitely didn't hinder my usage of the mouse, but unlike with the keyboard, I felt myself drifting back towards my usual MX Master 4 mouse, which lifts the arm slightly, coupled with the basic £8 cushioned mouse mat from Amazon I've used for years (available from AU$18 on Amazon AU).

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with the M850L - as you'd expect from a top-line Logitech product, it's fast and responsive, connectivity is excellent, and its light and compact build make it excellent for taking on a work trip or commute. There are four programmable buttons which can be assigned to specific tasks or tools, and there's no need for a dongle to connect - everything is done via Bluetooth.

But at £49.99 / AU$99.99 (which some may still think is a bit much for a mouse) on its own, or £99.99 / AU$169.99 with the MK880 keyboard, maybe a bit more extra cushioning in the future, please?

Just my type

Although many of you might initially think of keyboards as dull, identikit tools that just serve a simple purpose, Logitech has been on somewhat of a crusade to disprove that over the past few years.

This is particularly true when it comes to improving ergonomics - as we all know how uncomfortable it can be slamming away at a basic Microsoft keyboard with clacking keys.

I've been using Logitech's amazing Wave Keys device for some time, with it's eye-catching raised design and built-in palm cushioning really making a difference when it comes to comfort.

(Image credit: Future / Mike Moore)

In some ways, the Signature Comfort Plus MK880 keyboard is a slightly toned-down version of the Wave Keys, offering a more refined look, but including the expected comfort.

It once again features the raised hump in the middle of the keyboard, offering what it says is a more natural typing position, but the keys themselves are far shallower than the Wave Keys, leading to a quieter typing experience.

The built-in palm rest is something we've come to expect from Logitech products over the past few years, but the MK880 really goes above and beyond - rather than just some basic spongey foam like you see in some cheaper options, the cushioning is soft and delicate, with your wrists balancing lightly on top, rather than bouncing off - all again making for a more pleasant typing experience.

Apart from the comfort features, the MK880 is also an excellent all-round keyboard - light and grippy, and easy to connect to your device via Bluetooth, so there's no dongle required.

All in all, the MK880 is a fantastic addition to my workspace, and if you're looking for that extra bit of comfort in your day-to-day work, the £99.99 / AU$169.99 price tag for the keyboard and mouse will pay for itself in the long run.

For all the attention given to sophisticated cyber threats and zero-day vulnerabilities, most organizations are overlooking a far more immediate danger: the risks they already know about – but haven’t fixed.

Recent research paints a sobering picture of enterprise security today. Across more than 800,000 IT assets analyzed, one in three lacks at least one critical security control. Nearly one in five is running end-of-life software and 17% sit entirely outside traditional vulnerability management tools.

In other words, the modern attack surface is not just expanding – it is becoming increasingly fragmented, poorly understood and difficult to control.

Breaches built on the basics

One of the most concerning recent developments is how little attackers need to innovate. Every one of the top 10 most frequently exploited vulnerabilities in recent incident response cases had already been patched by vendors – often months earlier.

At the same time, 65% of incidents involved the abuse of remote access services such as VPNs, RDP and remote management tools. These are not obscure weaknesses; they are foundational components of modern IT environments.

The takeaway is clear: attackers are not outpacing defenders technologically. They are taking advantage of execution gaps. Organizations have become adept at identifying vulnerabilities, but far less effective at prioritizing and remediating them and the gap between knowing, prioritizing and fixing is where risk accumulates. That gap is now where most breaches begin.

The visibility problem

At the heart of the issue lies a more fundamental challenge: visibility. Enterprise IT environments have evolved into highly distributed ecosystems, spanning on-premises infrastructure, cloud services, SaaS applications, remote endpoints and third-party integrations.

Each layer is typically managed by different tools, each maintaining its own inventory. None offers a complete view, and the result is predictable. Assets fall outside patch cycles. Devices are not covered by endpoint protection. Entire systems go unscanned. Almost a fifth (17%) of assets are now not covered by vulnerability management tools at all – effectively rendering them invisible from a security standpoint.

This is not simply a technical oversight. It creates what many security leaders now recognize as a structural weakness: organizations cannot secure what they cannot see.

For UK businesses, this challenge is becoming increasingly consequential. Regulatory frameworks such as the Network and Information Systems (NIS2) Regulations – and the UK’s forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill – are placing greater emphasis on demonstrable control over assets and risk. Inaccurate inventories and fragmented data make that more and more difficult to prove.

Legacy systems: The risk that won’t go away

Compounding the visibility issue is the persistence of legacy technology. 19% of IT assets are running software or hardware that has reached end-of-life, meaning it no longer receives security updates.

These systems are particularly challenging. In sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing and financial services, they are often embedded in critical processes and cannot be easily replaced. Yet they remain permanently exposed to known vulnerabilities.

The problem is not just their existence, but their opacity. It is not unusual for organizations to believe legacy systems have been decommissioned – only to discover they were still active. This creates a persistent blind spot within the attack surface, one that attackers are quick to exploit.

A growing gap between perception and reality

Perhaps most concerning is the extent to which organizations misunderstand their own security posture. Many rely on a single system of record – such as a configuration management tool as their “source of truth”. However, these systems are often incomplete.

In one example, a company believed it had full endpoint protection coverage based on internal reporting. Independent analysis revealed that a portion of its devices were not included in the system at all. This disconnect between perception and reality creates a false sense of security – one that is increasingly untenable in a climate of rising regulatory scrutiny and board-level accountability.

Across the UK and EU, frameworks such as the Digital Operational Resilience Act in financial services and NIS2 more broadly are raising expectations. Organizations are no longer judged on whether controls are in place, but whether they are effective, verifiable and consistently applied.

From vulnerability management to exposure management

Against this backdrop, there is a broader shift in how organizations approach cybersecurity. Traditional vulnerability management, focused on identifying and scoring flaws, is no longer sufficient. The challenge is not a lack of data, but a lack of clarity about what matters most.

Exposure management, by contrast, adopts a more holistic view. It combines continuous asset discovery with data from multiple sources, applying business and threat context to prioritize risk. Crucially, it also focuses on verification – ensuring that remediation actions are actually completed.

This shift is already delivering measurable results. Organizations that adopt more mature exposure management practices see reductions of more than 40% across key risk categories, including missing controls and end-of-life assets.

A new baseline for cyber resilience

The implications for UK organizations are clear. Cybersecurity is no longer just about defending against the unknown. It is about managing the known – systematically, continuously and at scale.

This is particularly relevant as cyber risk becomes more tightly linked to regulatory compliance, insurance requirements and board-level governance. The ability to demonstrate control over the attack surface – to prove what exists, how it is protected and whether risks have been reduced – is fast becoming a baseline expectation.

Attackers are now able to achieve domain-wide control in minutes once inside an environment. In that context, delays in remediation or gaps in visibility are not just operational issues – they are critical business risks.

The organizations that will succeed are those that close the gap between insight and action. Those that move beyond assumptions and develop a clear, verifiable understanding of their exposure. Ultimately in today’s threat landscape, the greatest risk is not what organizations don’t yet know – it is what they already know, but haven’t fixed.

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

Insta360 founder and CEO Liu Jingkang, aka 'JK', recently shared a potentially controversial post on Chinese social media platform Weibo, which translated reads:

“Our product vision is to build a ‘Cameraman’ — an intelligent photography robot capable of automatically composing shots and capturing moments like a professional photographer, allowing users to remain fully immersed in the present.

"Today, AI is rapidly evolving, we believe the Cameraman’s 'brain' is becoming increasingly capable, unlocking new possibilities for creative imaging.

"In the long term, the ideal end state for cameras is to progressively become imperceptible, even to ‘disappear,’ until recording no longer consumes effort and becomes a natural part of life.”

As a concerned photographer (and as a concerned human being) I wrote a response to that post, and asked Insta360 for comment.

JK provided me with a statement addressing my concerns and elaborating on his vision, and he and Insta360 also answered a number of specific questions I put to them about the company's potentially game-changing plans for its future cameras.

Below you'll find JK's response, followed by my interview with JK and an Insta360 spokesperson.

Insta360 makes the best tiny videos cameras ideal for POV footage, and new accessories make such inconspicuous cameras easier to operate hands-free. (Image credit: Basil Kronfli)

JK's response: I’ve always believed imaging serves three fundamental human needs: to record, to share, and to create.

AI will undoubtedly reshape parts of this industry, especially in sharing and commercial creation. But when it comes to recording our lives, I believe there is a line AI cannot cross. Technology can make tools easier to use, but it cannot replace the human qualities behind truly meaningful work — judgment, emotion, taste, and the creative energy that come from lived experience.

For me, a photo I take of my daughter’s smile is priceless not because of technical perfection, but because I was there. I felt that moment. AI can generate, enhance, and imitate, but it cannot experience life on our behalf.

Human beings are the measure of all things. You should not hand over experiences that ought to belong to you to algorithms and machines.

So when we talk about the future of the camera, we are not talking about replacing people. We are talking about building tools that help people capture life more freely, more naturally, and with less friction. The future is not about making machines more human — it is about helping humans be more present, more creative, and more themselves.

The interview

TC: What does this 'cameraman' look like? Is it one entity or multiple products?

JK: For us, the future cameraman is a product vision rather than a single device.

Insta360: The core idea is to create a camera that can automatically compose shots, capture key moments, and produce finished content for the user, so people can stay fully immersed in the moment without missing what matters.

When you’re traveling or watching a live event, you often end up holding up a phone the entire time and looking at the screen instead of the experience itself. Our long-term vision is for the camera to work more like a professional photographer: you stay present, and it helps take care of the filming for you.

We’re still exploring what the ideal form factor looks like, so in the near term there won’t be one final ultimate product. But we’re already bringing elements of that vision into existing products. For example, Luna Ultra's POV head tracker enables a more seamless, almost invisible shooting experience, and we see that as an important early form of the future cameraman.

TC: Are we to take it that the 'intelligent photography robot' will be fully automated and independent?

Insta360: First, it’s important to clarify that the future cameraman doesn’t mean a humanoid robot. It’s a product concept and a long-term vision for how cameras should evolve.

The idea is to free users from complicated operation so they can be truly present in the moment while still getting professional-looking results. In that sense, the camera starts to play more of the role of a photographer. Imagine a family outing where the system can automatically frame, capture, edit, and output content end-to-end, without someone constantly needing to manage the device.

That said, this isn’t about a camera acting independently without the user. It’s about highly intelligent operation under user direction, intent, and control. The camera should be able to automate far more of the process, including recording comprehensively when the user wants it to, but always within boundaries set by the user. Our goal is for the experience to feel effortless and natural — even to the point where the camera becomes almost imperceptible in everyday life.

In future, could Insta360 might make cameras such as the Luna Ultra (above) fully autonomous? (Image credit: Future / Tim Coleman)

TC: Can you describe the composing, shooting and editing functionalities?

Insta360: To build the future cameraman, a camera needs to do three things well: see, understand, and act.

First, it needs to see more of the world. That’s one reason 360 imaging matters so much to us. A traditional camera captures only a narrow frame, while a 360 camera captures the full scene. That gives both the user and the AI much more context, reduces the risk of missing important moments, and creates a stronger foundation for tracking, reframing, and scene understanding.

Second, it needs spatial intelligence. The camera has to understand depth, motion, orientation, and what’s happening in the environment — not just record pixels, but actually interpret the scene.

Third, it needs to act in real time. That means tracking subjects, stabilizing footage, composing shots, predicting movement, and eventually making smarter filming decisions automatically based on the user’s intent. If it can’t respond instantly, it doesn’t really behave like a cameraman.

JK: The cameraman sits at the intersection of sensing, on-device AI, and computational imaging. The goal is for the camera to stop being just a recording tool and start becoming an active creative partner.

TC: Could you unpack a specific future feature being explored that leads Insta360's camera to being an 'active creative partner'?

Insta360: When we talk about an ‘active creative partner,’ we mean an intelligent imaging solution that better understands the scene and helps users capture it more intelligently. In dynamic environments, it can keep up with subjects with less user intervention, so people can stay focused on the moment while the camera handles more of the technical work.

To support that vision, we’ve already built a strong technical foundation, including panoramic generation and a panoramic metric depth model. We’ve already open-sourced these technologies for the industry, and they have potential applications not only in 360 cameras, but in other products and fields as well.

TC: How is the 'cameraman' different from existing cameras and Insta360 models?

Insta360: Insta360 already has some of the foundational capabilities needed for the future cameraman. Features like AI stitching, FlowState stabilization, subject tracking, reframing, auto-editing, and on-device image processing are all part of the camera’s evolution toward more intelligent and autonomous capture. That said, today’s products are still early versions of what that fully realized experience could become.

We’ve spent years building deep expertise in 360 imaging, and that gives us a strong foundation in spatial intelligence. Compared with a traditional camera that records only a single frame, 360 imaging data provides a complete field of view and continuous spatial context. Combined with our work in spatial modeling and generative intelligence, that helps AI move from simply “seeing” the world toward actually understanding it.

That’s a key difference in how we think about the future of imaging. And going forward, we’ll continue investing in areas like panoramic depth estimation, world models, and autonomous follow systems.

TC: What's the timescale for this 'cameraman'?

Insta360: This is a long-term vision, and we expect to realize it through continuous product iteration over time. Rather than arriving all at once in a single product, we see it developing step by step as the underlying technologies mature and become ready for real-world use.

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

TC: Does this 'cameraman' record autonomously? If so, couldn't that be a privacy concern?

Insta360: This is one of the most important questions in the age of AI hardware. Our view is that future intelligent imaging devices should be able to automate recording much more deeply — even to the point of capturing everything the user wants preserved — but always under the user’s authorization and control.

The core idea behind cameraman is not uncontrolled, limitless recording. It’s about turning the camera from a manually operated tool into an intelligent companion that understands what the user wants to capture and helps do that more effectively. That may require environmental awareness and autonomous recording when the user explicitly enables them, but those capabilities should always be bounded by clear user intent, permissions, and controls.

In other words, autonomy is important, but user agency is essential. We believe that’s the right balance for the future of intelligent imaging.

TC: Does Insta360 envision the system ultimately replacing professional content creators, or is the vision aimed at consumers?

Insta360: No — this is not about replacing photographers, videographers, or creators. It is mainly about helping consumers capture moments more easily, with less friction and less fear of missing the shot.

For professionals, we see these capabilities as assistive tools, not substitutes for human creativity. Great photography and filmmaking still depend on judgment, storytelling, taste, and human connection. Our goal is to reduce technical friction in capture, not replace the creator behind the camera.

The Luna Ultra now works with a POV Head Tracker (see the device in the man's ear), which synchronizes head and camera movement, truly freeing up the user for hands-free immersive POV shots. (Image credit: Insta360)The right side of the line?

It remains to be seen just how autonomous Insta360 cameras could become, but Insta360's response somewhat allays my fears about where its camera tech could be heading. And I get the logic — the ease of use and streamlined workflow of Insta360's consumer cameras in particular, which include leading 360-degree and vlogging cameras, are integral to their success.

Cameras such as the Insta360 X5, and Insta360's companion app are already packed with smart tools that make 360-degree video content easier to capture and edit. So, thinking ahead, why make the process unnecessarily difficult for the sake of user agency, when an intelligent camera knows which direction to point in?

Why pour over lengthy 360-degree video clips to manually piece together an edit, when AI knows where the best action is happening and can suggest / make the edit for you?

It's this intersection of human creativity and automated AI tools where we might start to see more intelligent functions assisting users in shooting, editing and sharing, freeing them up to "be more present" as JK puts it, rather than being bogged down with camera operation. And if any company is in the position to advance this kind of intelligent camera tech, it's Insta360.

Both OpenAI and Google have released major new AI models within days of each other. OpenAI launched GPT-5.6, and Google has followed up with Gemini 3.6 Flash. While both companies have talked up the coding and developer features of these models, they also power the consumer versions of ChatGPT and Gemini.

So, rather than measuring them with programming benchmarks, I wanted to find out which is actually better at the kind of messy, everyday problems most people use AI to solve.

For this comparison, I matched Google's Gemini 3.6 Flash against GPT-5.6 Sol using its default Medium reasoning setting, since both are intended to be the standard high-quality models that paid subscribers will use for most tasks.

My digital life

So, I gave them my entire digital life for the week ahead.

I uploaded:

• Bank statements
• My calendar (they had access to my calendar app and I also sent in a screenshot of my calendar from another account I use).
• Grocery receipts
• Emails (both had access to my Gmail)
• WhatsApp screenshots
• Photos of my kitchen cupboards
• An energy bill
• Travel bookings
• Handwritten notes

Then I gave both models exactly the same instruction:

"Tell me everything I should do this week."

It sounds like a simple request, but it forces an AI to combine information from multiple sources, prioritize what's important, spot deadlines, reconcile conflicting information, and produce a practical action plan. In other words, it's exactly the kind of real-world problem people increasingly expect AI assistants to solve.

The results were like night and day.

Two different approachesDid 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

When I uploaded the files to Gemini 3.6 Flash and asked what I should do this week, it largely ignored the photos and concentrated on the screenshot of my calendar. Its initial answer mostly repeated the events I already knew were happening. Thanks, Gemini — I had the calendar open in front of me.

I then had to explicitly ask whether it could infer anything useful from the other images. It eventually offered some additional advice and did a good job of dividing the information into categories, including work, shopping, fitness, notes, and receipts. But it failed to flag that I had two clashing events in my calendar that evening. It also offered very little prioritization or practical guidance about what I should do next.

ChatGPT took considerably longer to respond, but its answer was far more useful. From the WhatsApp screenshots, it correctly deduced that attendance at my Friday Tai Chi class was likely to be low and suggested I decide whether it was still worth running. It noticed that yoga had been canceled, and spotted the two conflicting events in my calendar, telling me that I needed to choose between them.

It also totalled the receipts I had uploaded, suggested what I should do with them, and made a decent attempt at deciphering my handwritten notes. More importantly, it organized everything into a day-by-day plan for the coming week, then identified the three most urgent tasks, so I knew exactly where to begin.

The crucial difference

That was the crucial difference. Gemini told me what was in my files. ChatGPT worked out what I should do with the information. In World Cup terms, ChatGPT scored a hat trick while Gemini missed a penalty.

Google says Gemini 3.6 Flash improves coding, knowledge work, and multimodal performance compared with its previous models. That may be true, but in this particular multimodal test, it was comfortably beaten.

When I asked both AIs to make sense of real life rather than pass a benchmark, ChatGPT reasoned about the information in a far better way than Gemini did..

Does innovation happen only under pressure? It is a difficult question to ask, because history does give us a difficult answer.

Wars, shocks and national emergencies have often forced societies to move faster than they would in normal times, and many of the technologies we now take for granted came from moments nobody would wish to repeat.

The Second World War is the obvious example, with its lasting influence on medicine, aviation, computing, communications and manufacturing.

The Covid pandemic gave us a more recent version of the same pattern, when a global health crisis pushed scientists, regulators, governments and pharmaceutical companies to develop and approve vaccines at a speed that would previously have been treated as impossible.

Ukraine’s experience

It is often said that Ukraine’s experience of wartime innovation cannot be replicated in ‘peaceful’ Britain. In one sense, of course it cannot. One country is fighting for its survival against a much larger aggressor, while the other is an island nation that has lived for decades with the habits and assumptions of relative security.

Yet that argument only takes us so far. If urgency drives innovation, then the more useful question is what creates urgency in societies that are not at war. Or, to put it more plainly, what creates urgency in countries that do not really feel themselves to be under existential threat?

Britons continue to go about their daily lives much as they always have. People work, travel, argue about politics, worry about mortgages, watch sport, plan holidays and assume that the basic structures around them will continue to function. This sense of normality is, of course, a privilege. It is also one of the reasons why creating urgency in peacetime can be so difficult.

Britain, though, has repeatedly shown that it can innovate with extraordinary force when the need becomes clear. The Industrial Revolution transformed the country and then the world, with British engineers helping to build the railways, steam power and manufacturing systems that reshaped entire economies. For a small archipelago, Britain has had an unusual ability to turn technical advances into industry, infrastructure and global influence.

During the Second World War, that ability appeared again under extreme pressure. Radar helped defend British skies, then became part of the foundation for aviation, shipping, weather forecasting and modern sensing systems. Penicillin, discovered through British science, became a mass medical revolution because wartime urgency forced production and clinical adoption at scale.

At Bletchley Park, the need to break codes helped push electronic computing from theory into practical machinery, with Colossus showing what computation could achieve when the stakes were national.

More recent experience

More recently, the pandemic showed that this capacity has not disappeared.

Oxford researchers began human trials of their COVID-19 vaccine in April 2020. By December, Oxford and AstraZeneca had published the first peer-reviewed Phase III results for a coronavirus vaccine, and the UK became the first country to authorize the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for public use. That was not an accident of national character. It happened because institutions, expertise, capital, government and industry were all pointed at the same urgent problem.

Innovation is therefore hardly foreign to Britain.. The question is what conditions have historically allowed it to move at speed, and whether those conditions can be created today without waiting for a disaster to create them for us.

That question is now becoming more urgent in defense. The war in Ukraine has shown how quickly military technology can evolve when adaptation becomes a matter of survival. Capabilities that might once have taken years to develop now change in months, and sometimes in weeks. Software updates, autonomous systems, drones, electronic warfare tools and battlefield data are changing how militaries think about capability, procurement and industrial readiness.

This shift has not gone unnoticed in Britain. The Strategic Defence Review repeatedly refers to the need for innovation, agility and "wartime pace" and those phrases now appear across government, military and industry discussions. That is progress, but language is only the beginning - the real test is whether Britain can build systems that make speed practical, funded and repeatable.

For much of its modern history, Ukraine has faced questions of sovereignty, territorial integrity and, at times, national survival. Following Russia's invasion in 2014 and again in 2022, the need to compensate for a larger adversary accelerated the adoption of drones, electronic warfare systems and other asymmetric capabilities. Innovation became part of a broader national effort to preserve statehood.

However, Ukraine also demonstrates why simple comparisons can be misleading. Countries do not all innovate for the same reasons, because countries do not all carry the same history. The pressures that shape Ukrainian urgency are not the same that shape British urgency and pretending otherwise would be lazy.

A very different story

Russia has often mobilized around a very different story, built on encirclement, external enemies and the restoration of great-power status. From Soviet narratives of confrontation with the West to contemporary rhetoric around NATO expansion and historical spheres of influence, the perception of an external challenge has repeatedly been used to justify national consolidation and state-led mobilization.

The United States offers another model again. American technological acceleration has often been driven by the ambition to lead, whether that meant reaching the Moon before the Soviet Union, dominating emerging industries, or maintaining military and economic advantage. Its urgency has often come from competition, scale and the belief that leadership itself is a national objective.

This suggests that urgency itself may not be the defining variable. Different societies move when different ideas become powerful enough to organize institutions, capital, industry and talent. Britain’s challenge is not to recreate Ukraine’s conditions, which are uniquely and painfully Ukrainian. Britain’s challenge is to identify the national objective that can generate serious effort in a British context.

Part of the answer may lie in the way Britain thinks about time. Earlier this year, addressing the United States Congress, King Charles referred to America’s founding 250 years ago and joked that, in British terms, it felt like “just the other day”. It was a light remark, but it captured something real about Britain’s historical outlook. This is a country that often sees itself across long stretches of time.

That can make Britain frustratingly slow at the beginning of a challenge. It can also make the country unusually powerful once it connects immediate pressure to a longer national story. Threat alone has rarely been enough as a British organizing principle. Britain has responded to danger when required, but some of its most important periods of innovation came when immediate pressure was tied to economic transformation, scientific leadership or institution-building.

The changing character of warfare

Seen through that lens, Ukraine is more than a warning about the changing character of warfare. It is an early view of technologies that are likely to shape economies and societies long after this war has ended. To mobilize Britain properly, the opportunity should not be presented as a narrow defense issue. The technologies being tested under the hardest conditions can become the basis of new industries, new standards and new areas of commercial leadership.

Britain has always been good at building industries around serious technologies once the need is understood. Its strength has rarely been invention alone. It has been the ability to create institutions, standards, markets, professional services, capital structures and global relationships around invention.

The country has many of the ingredients needed to lead here. It has excellent universities, serious engineering talent, strong financial markets, a respected legal system, advanced manufacturing capability, deep insurance expertise and global reach. It also has a long relationship with Ukraine and a new political framework through the UK-Ukraine 100 Year Partnership.

This is where the next stage of support for Ukraine should become more ambitious. The UK should continue to support Ukraine militarily, financially and diplomatically, because Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and the security of Europe. Alongside that support, technology partnership should become one of the defining features of the relationship.

The logic is straightforward. Ukraine has some of the most relevant operational learning in the world. Britain has the skills, institutions and history to turn urgent invention into global progress. Put together properly, that combination could help Ukraine rebuild, strengthen Britain’s preparedness and create technologies with value far beyond the current war.

That will require more than warm words. Britain should build a practical UK-Ukraine dual-use technology corridor around real problems and real users. That means identifying Ukrainian technologies and operational lessons with proven relevance, pairing them with British engineers, universities, investors, commercial customers, defense users and regulators, then testing them in real environments.

The focus should be on areas where Britain has a genuine need and Ukraine has hard-won experience. Protecting airports from drone disruption. Inspecting offshore energy assets. Improving emergency communications. Strengthening supply chains. Applying AI to difficult visual data. Detecting interference around critical infrastructure. Monitoring farmland and infrastructure with autonomous systems.

The ethical point matters. Ukraine cannot become a source of raw ideas for others to package, own and sell back to the world. If Britain wants to be trusted by Ukrainian founders, engineers, soldiers and policymakers, it has to treat Ukraine as a partner in value creation. The best arrangements will allow Ukrainian companies to scale internationally through the UK while keeping a proper stake in their intellectual property, commercial future and national recovery.

A hard strategic reason

There is also a hard strategic reason to get this right. Every serious country is now rethinking defense, industrial resilience and technology. The United States, Germany, Japan and others are deepening their relationships with Ukraine because they understand that the war is reshaping the future of security. Britain has been one of Ukraine’s strongest allies, and that support is recognized with real gratitude. The next stage should match that moral commitment with a more ambitious technology partnership.

Procurement will decide whether this becomes real. A start-up cannot wait years for a serious decision. Investors will struggle to back complex national security technologies if successful trials lead nowhere. Defense users need permission to test smaller companies without being trapped by process. Commercial customers need help understanding where battlefield-tested technologies can be used safely, lawfully and usefully in civilian settings.

Without those pathways, Britain will admire Ukrainian innovation in public while failing to absorb its lessons in practice. That would be a serious missed opportunity. The technologies being shaped in Ukraine will influence how we inspect buildings, move goods, respond to disasters, protect power networks, secure public spaces, monitor farmland and manage risk. Some will remain military. Many will move into civilian life so gradually that, in ten years, people may forget where the original lessons came from.

That has always been the way. Radar did not remain a wartime technology. Penicillin did not remain a wartime medicine. Computing did not remain hidden inside codebreaking. Once wartime pressure forced progress, society found wider uses, and the countries that knew how to translate those advances gained economic, scientific and strategic power.

Britain has done this before. It has turned moments of pressure into technologies, industries and institutions that shaped the modern world. Ukraine is now revealing where the next wave of defense and dual-use technology is heading. The UK should help build it, and it should do so with Ukraine.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best online collaboration 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