Tech-battery.com| Wholesale Phone,Tablet,Camera ,Tool ,Laptop Battery, Adapter and Accessories store in US

Commentary: The gadget survived music streaming, rival players and the iPhone.

Editor’s note, May 11, 2022: This commentary originally ran in October 2021 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the iPod. We’re rerunning it today following the news that the iPod is finally being put out to pasture.

For a long time, the iPod and Apple were synonymous — entities that were constantly morphing and shaping, rather than reacting to, the whims of users. Yet while Apple’s fortunes are still on the rise, the iPod’s light has dimmed and the iPhone commands the lion’s share of attention. But the device that jump-started Apple’s modern fortunes is still on sale after 20 years.

No, seriously.

After its release in 2001, the iPod, helped along by the iTunes music store, became one of the most iconic gadgets of all time, spawning a host of imitators and legitimizing the market of MP3 players that it dominated. The iPod has evolved and radically changed over time: It’s now an iPhone without the cellular radio. But you can still buy an iPod Touch on Apple’s website (you need to dig for it at the bottom of the home page), a testament to its remarkable longevity in an industry where last year’s gadget is quickly forgotten.

Is the iPod still relevant in the 2020s? Let’s look back at the iPod’s history and examine what has contributed to its staying power, and where, if anywhere, it might be going.

Nostalgia is an emotion that keeps coming up when people talk about the iPod, but as any neuroscientist will tell you it’s because music and memory are intrinsically linked. Tony Fadell, the former Apple executive who designed and built the iPod, was in a reflective mood as the music player’s 20th anniversary approached.

“A lot of people still remember those iPod days,” Fadell told CNET in an interview. “It was truly a superpower.”

Fadell grew up listening to the Sony Walkman and, as fate would have it, was recruited by Steve Jobs 20 years later to craft what would be its digital replacement. The iPod soon became so ubiquitous it’s easy to forget that Apple didn’t actually invent the digital music player. The first MP3 players — including the Rio PMP300 — preceded the iPod by three years, but back then MP3 was a mostly illegal and highly litigable format.

Fadell and his colleagues labored to create the iPod, which was unveiled on Oct. 23, 2001, barely a month after the events of Sept. 11. This was a portable music player with a 5GB hard drive, an easier way to load and buy songs, and the memorable tagline of “1,000 songs in your pocket.” Apple was able to offer a portable music device — a physical object like the Walkman and the turntable before it — that combined with its digital iTunes platform. It could also play people’s carefully pirated curated MP3 collections.

Nowadays, Fadell likens his iPod to a time capsule that he likes to visit from time to time: “You kind of jack in and you’re like, ‘I’m just right back to early 2000s music and the music before that.'”

Read more: ‘Whoa whoa’: iPod’s inventor looks back on Apple’s ‘really big risks’

It’s good to be the king

The iPod helped transform Apple from a struggling computer manufacturer to the world’s biggest company. Fadell told CNET the team was flying by the seat of its pants when it put together the iPod. But producing the first model was only half the battle.

As with Apple itself, the secret to the iPod’s longevity has been reinvention. The iPod went through multiple design changes in its lifetime — from a “dumb” music device packing a hard drive, to a screenless fob, all the way to what is now essentially a cut-down iPhone. While the focus has been predominantly on music, the device gained a series of features over time.

Fadell said the designers kept adding a little bit of capability each year so they “didn’t overwhelm the users.”

“You start with music, add some photos and podcasts and videos and games,” he said. “So keep layering on and giving them something new.”

This branching-out led to dozens of models over the years from the Nano to the Mini and ultimately to the Touch. To a modern eye, the most inscrutable of these is the iPod Shuffle — a player without a screen and just a simple set of controls — but its philosophy of “running your own radio station” has also driven streaming services like Pandora and Spotify. Even with all of these variations, the one that looms largest is the iPod Classic, with its iconic scroll wheel and chunky, clutchable shape.

Despite its evolution, Apple’s principle of keeping listeners in its closed ecosystem has been the key to the popularity of not just the iPod, but modern devices like the iPhone and iPad. As part of this process, Apple funnels any third-party purchases through its own lucrative App Store. Fadell said that in the early days this was done to improve compatibility.

“It really all stemmed from iTunes and iPod and making them work incredibly seamlessly well.”

See also
Apple event recap: AirPods 3, new MacBook Pro and more
Apple unveils new AirPods at $179
Apple’s MacBook Pro display features a new notch, faster refresh rate
The iPod also led to a number of inventions, including the Bluetooth speaker. The Bose SoundDock 10 was one of the first devices to incorporate both Bluetooth and an iPod dock. Then when Apple changed from the 30-pin plug to the Lightning connector — effectively killing the iPod dock — it was Bluetooth that proved to be the winning feature.

We also wouldn’t have podcasts without the iPod — it’s in the name — and it’s an understatement to say that the format is raging right now. When septuagenarian comedian Steve Martin makes a TV show about them you know podcasts are a fully established part of the zeitgeist.

For a decade, the iPod and its many facets captured the public’s imagination — the often-parodied, silhouetted iPod ads were seemingly everywhere — but the device’s popularity was constantly tested, with the biggest threat coming from within Apple.

Pretenders to the throne
The music player has weathered a number of threats in its time, most of which were described as “iPod killers,” from Microsoft’s Zune to Sony’s reinvented Walkman to high-end models from the likes of Pono.

None of these took off in the way their inventors hoped, with the iPod regularly grabbing roughly 80% of the market during its heyday. No, it wasn’t other MP3 players that were the greatest threat to the iPod, but an even more talented type of type of device.

“The real competition came when cellphones started getting data — cellphones starting to be 2.5G, starting to look like Sidekicks and starting to put on MP3,” Fadell said.

Apple flirted with these so-called “feature phones” by helping to create the infamous Motorola Rokr in 2005 — but that product wasn’t a great phone and it was an even worse MP3 player. It was, however, the precursor to something that would become much more influential than the iPod.

In 2007, Apple launched its first iPhone on AT&T as an exclusive, and it was the logical evolution of the company’s ideas. It was so much more than an iPod with an antenna in it. This device was simple to use and it could play music, browse the web and make phone calls. It wasn’t until the iPhone 3G, which benefited from lower pricing, a faster cellular connection and the newly introduced App Store, that people began flocking to buy the device.

Pockets and pocketbooks are only so deep, and so Apple’s fans reached the point where they had to choose between the two devices. “People are only going to carry one device. Which one is going to be their go-to device — communication or media?” Fadell said.

Despite new and more convenient shapes and sizes, including sports-friendly clips, the iPod’s days were now numbered, and the company itself was the one to blame. Even Apple recognized that.

“We expect our traditional MP3 players to decline over time as we cannibalize ourselves with the iPod Touch and the iPhone,” Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s chief financial officer said in July 2009, as reported by MacWorld.

The slow decline
When I spoke with Roger Cheng, CNET’s head of news, about writing this piece, he responded with: “Is the iPod still alive? Oh damn it is.”

After 2010, the rate of iPod releases slowed as more people spent their money on iPhones and rival Android phones instead. The various models started disappearing from the company’s lineup. We said goodbye to the iPod Classic in 2014 and, more recently, the iPod Nano and iPod Shuffle.

The introduction of streaming music services in the early 2010s were the final dagger in the heart of the iPod. Users no longer had to load phones with songs beforehand when they could listen to music anywhere with a cell connection. With an iPod Touch you either had to remember to download songs for offline listening or, more likely, stay tethered to a Wi-Fi network to stream your Spotify playlists.

The most recent version of the iPod came out in 2019 and it was a chance for the company to attempt another reinvention. The iPod Touch’s launch coincided with the release of the Apple Arcade, the company’s first gaming subscription service, and the iPod was now pitched as a complementary gaming device.

The issue was that the iPhone was always a more popular gaming device than the Touch, and at prices between $199 and $399, gamers were more attracted to the shiny, new Nintendo Switch instead. Of course, the Switch can’t take photos or browse the web, but in his review of the 2019 iPod Touch CNET’s Patrick Holland called it “the most adorable piece of nostalgia you don’t need.”

In one interesting footnote to the iPod’s 20 years, the device has outlasted the MacOS program that launched it — Apple iTunes — as it was replaced with Music once Catalina debuted. (iTunes does still exist on Windows.)

Apple didn’t respond to my requests for comment on this story, and when I contacted market research firm NPD for sales data, the company said that sales had been “pretty minimal over the last 5 years or so.” The fundamental question remains: Is it a matter of when, and not if, the iPod Touch will be the next to go?

What is the future for the iPod?
Despite the powerful feelings that nostalgia evokes, it’s unlikely that the iPod can enjoy another renaissance in the way that other products have. Single-use devices like the Switch and the iPod Classic are now becoming rarer, and many electronic gadgets can do a bunch of things reasonably well. The problem for Apple is that there are many devices that can do what the Touch can do, and they can work as a telephone too.

For 10 years, Apple and the iPod were inexorably linked — one’s fortunes were tied to the other. Those days have passed now thanks to the iPhone, a resurgence of Macs and a slew of accessories. Nowadays, the iPod’s legacy is more substantial than its sales.

Yet the iPod Touch still hangs around the site, even if it takes a bit of work to find it. It’s unclear why Apple keeps it around — respect? nostalgia? — but what’s more certain is the legacy that the iPod created and that informs new products such as the AirPods 3.

It’s been two years since the last version of the iPod, which will likely be the last. If this model disappears quietly with another site redesign, as did the iPods before it, we’ll go rooting through the bottom drawer for a 30-pin adapter to remind us of the good times. Ours and Apple’s.

Intel took the wraps off a highly anticipated AI accelerator chip on Tuesday, a key part of the chipmaker’s effort to reclaim ground lost to Nvidia and other rivals in the hot computing area.

The Gaudi2, designed by Intel’s Israel-based Habana Labs, is twice as fast as its first-generation predecessor, the chipmaker said at its Vision conference for Intel customers and partners. The chip should be in servers that ship by the end of the year, said Eitan Medina, Habana’s chief operating officer.

AI chips like the Gaudi line accelerate the particular math calculations at the heart of today’s artificial intelligence technology. A third-generation Gaudi3 is already being developed with higher performance, more memory and better networking abilities, Medina said.

The Gaudi2 and similar chips, like Nvidia’s new H100, are designed to boost the artificial intelligence revolution that’s sweeping the computing industry. The powerful chips are behind efforts to train AI models, which learn by processing complex real-world data to find patterns, more quickly and economically. They promise improved voice recognition for auto generating captions, as well as more involved operations, such as self-driving cars. (Mobileye, Intel’s autonomous vehicle subsidiary, trains its AI systems with first-generation Gaudi processors, Medina said, but the company has other automotive customers, too.)

AI technology spending will surge 20% to $433 billion in 2022, IDC predicted in February. “AI has emerged as the next major wave of innovation,” analyst Ritu Jyoti said in a statement.

Competing on price could be a winning strategy as AI spreads beyond giants with deep technical expertise like Amazon and Google, which use the technology for tasks like cutting shipments’ packaging and showing search results. At a lower price tag, AI will likely spread to newer applications, such as screening for fraud, monitoring crop health and flagging trouble spots on medical scans.

“From the business penetration of AI,” Medina said in an interview, “we are in the very early phases.”

Intel trying to catch up
Along with new graphics processing units, Gaudi2 is a centerpiece of Intel’s effort to reclaim computing leadership it’s lost over the last two decades. During Intel’s heyday, central processing units, the all-purpose brain of every computing device, were the stars of the computing show. GPUs, which Nvidia specialized in designing, were dedicated to speeding up video games.

Over time, GPUs took on important computing tasks that had been the domain of CPUs and expanded into AI. Investors noticed, giving Nvidia a market cap of $424 billion, more than double Intel’s $181 billion.

Although AI-specific accelerators are a hot area, Nvidia is sticking with GPUs, which can also be used for supercomputer calculations and other high-performance computing tasks. That flexibility is a selling point, said Ian Buck, vice president of Nvidia’s hyperscale and high-performance computing group.

GPUs’ flexibility advantage
“You don’t know where your AI model is necessarily going to go,” Buck said about the flexibility of GPUs. “If you’re an AI startup, your productivity is everything.”

Cruise, General Motors’ self-driving car subsidiary, seems to agree with that approach. The company rents Nvidia GPUs on Google’s cloud computing infrastructure because GPUs have more mature AI software and “extreme amounts of flexibility,” said Hussein Mehanna, head of Cruise’s AI work.

“There’s always something new,” and GPUs and GPU software can rapidly be adapted to cope, Mehanna said. “There’s always a new architecture, some new types of layers that we’re adding, merging [AI] models and separating models.”

Plenty of startups, including Graphcore, SambaNova Systems, Tenstorrent and Cerebras, are, like Intel, working on more specialized processors to accelerate AI. In the view of Cerebras Chief Executive Andrew Feldman, GPUs were better than CPUs for AI, but now it’s apparent their graphics origins are holding them back, and AI accelerators will prevail.

With AI accelerators now on the market to challenge the GPU approach, “the battle will be over the next five years,” Feldman said.

Intel’s two-pronged approach
Intel is betting both on AI-specific accelerators and flexible GPUs. Its Ponte Vecchio GPU is an enormously complicated processor that powers the Argonne National Laboratory’s Aurora supercomputer, which is expected to be powered up this year. In 2023, Intel will sell Ponte Vecchio to the broader market and develop successor chips that are cheaper and made in larger quantities, says Raja Koduri, who worked on GPUs at two Intel chip rivals, AMD and Apple, before joining Intel in 2017.

Koduri also leads the new Arc line of conventional GPUs that accelerate video games in Intel PCs. The first of those products, code-named Alchemist, are now shipping, with more powerful products arriving later this year for laptops and gaming PCs. With a road map stretching to 2025, Intel also is working on successors called Battlemage and Celestial.

In other words, Intel is attacking Nvidia on all fronts. “The market is really hungry for a third player” besides Nvidia and AMD, Koduri said.

For AI customers, it’s potentially confusing for Intel to offer both AI accelerators and general-purpose GPUs. Server processor chief Sandra Rivera, who oversees Intel’s AI work, says Intel opted for a wider product range instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. The idea is to meet customers where they are, she said.

Expect Intel to take advantage of its position as a seller of CPUs, GPUs and AI accelerators that can be linked tightly together so customers don’t have to assemble their own collections of IT gear.

“It’s a playbook we’ve run for a long time,” Rivera said. “Innovate and integrate.”

Apple has announced it is discontinuing its music player, the iPod Touch, bringing to an end a device widely praised for revolutionising how people listen to music.

When the first iPod was launched in 2001, it could store 1,000 tracks. Today there are more than 90 million songs on Apple’s streaming service.

The iPod Touch was designed by the same team that later invented the iPhone, which quickly overshadowed the iPod.

Apple last updated the iPod in 2019.

There have been various iPod models over the years – including the Nano and Shuffle – but the iPod Touch, which was released in 2007 is the last model to be discontinued.

Apple says it will remain available to buy “while stocks last”.

The gadget had “redefined how music is discovered, listened to, and shared”, Greg Joswiak, the senior vice-president of worldwide marketing at Apple said.

iPod fans have taken to social media to share their thoughts on the news and their memories connected with the music devices.

The first model of the iPod was revealed by Apple boss Steve Jobs in typical Apple style in 2001 – with much fanfare, anticipation and in his trademark jeans and black turtleneck.

There had been rumours the company was going to announce a new music player after the invitation for the launch event read: “Hint: It’s not a Mac.”

“Music’s a part of everyone’s life. Music’s been around forever. It will always be around,” Jobs said during his hour long presentation.

The big headline for the night was simple: “1,000 songs in your pocket.”

Over the years, many celebrities have thrown their star power behind the iPod, including John Mayer, U2 and Oprah Winfrey. BMW introduced the first car entertainment system with a built-in iPod system, and within a few years, most car manufacturers had followed suit.

But tech analysist say it was inevitable the iPhone would one day replace the iPod.

“When Apple created the iPhone it knew that it would ultimately mean the beginning of the end of the iPod,” Ben Wood, chief analyst at technology advisory firm CCS Insight, told the BBC.

Carolina Milanesi from Creative Strategies said the decline of iPod sales was connected to the rise of iPhone sales – like the move from digital sales to streaming.

“The demise of the iPod is probably the best example of Apple not being concerned about cannibalising its own products,” she said.

The iPod wasn’t the first MP3 player on the market, just like the iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone – but that unique Apple design proved to be the push digital music needed to start to tempt people away from CD and cassette players – and file-sharing.

In 2001 the music industry was fighting for survival against illegal file-sharing as tunes were ripped and shared on platforms faster than record labels could issue legal threats.

The launch of iTunes, and the iPod shortly afterwards, provided it with a lifeline in the form of revenue for legitimately purchased downloads.

It also revived the fortunes of Apple, which was languishing in a market dominated by Windows PCs.

It was introduced on stage by the late Steve Jobs at an event on 23 October 2001.

“With iPod, listening to music will never be the same again,” he said. And in many ways, he was right.

Commentary: There are five things I want to see on Apple’s next iPhone.

Apple’s iPhone 13 and 13 Pro offer great all-round performance and superb camera skills. Because of this, they sit among the best phones you can buy in 2022. But being the impatient, demanding tech addict that I am, I’ve set my sights on the rumored iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Pro.

Although Apple’s next iPhone almost certainly won’t debut until this fall (here’s everything you should know about its rumored release date, price and new design), I thought it was worth getting my wish list in early to give Apple the time it needs to put all of my ideas into action. Because that’s how it works, right?

In no particular order then, here are my top hopes for the iPhone 14.

No notch on the iPhone 14
The notch. It has to go. Yes, it’s served its purpose, housing as it does the front-facing camera and the various scanners to let you unlock your phone just by looking at it. And while the notch did get slightly smaller on the iPhone 13, it’s still a big chunk of screen that’s cut away. So it’s time for a better solution that lets that screen really shine.

Perhaps Apple could perfect under-display cameras that are there but essentially invisible. We’ve seen that already on phones from ZTE and Vivo, but the technology is far from perfect. Then there are the weird pop-up selfie cameras seen on some Oppo phones that spring up from the top edge, keeping the display unbroken.

I’d even compromise with a simple punch-hole solution, filling the front with the display but just popping a couple of small, less obtrusive holes for the cameras to peep through.

Read more: iPhone 14 Might Kill the Notch, but Only for the Pro

In-screen fingerprint scanner as well as Face ID
Speaking of things hidden in the screen, let’s pop a fingerprint scanner under there too. Apple’s Face ID works well for the most part, or at least it did before the pandemic hit. Wearing masks in public is a much more common occurrence than it was prior to the pandemic, and before the release of iOS 15.4 in March, face unlock simply didn’t work without also pairing up with an Apple Watch. Although you can now unlock your iPhone while wearing a mask thanks to the latest iOS update, I think Apple should still bring back fingerprint scanning.

In-screen scanning technology is common now, with affordable phones from OnePlus invisibly hiding scanners into the display of their phones and I find that they work pretty much as well as physical scanners that were once on the back or side of the phone. It’s not a step backward to put this technology in — it would simply be acknowledging that maybe the world needs a different solution to what we had before — which can be said of so many things.

A bigger zoom and larger sensor for iPhone 14’s camera
The iPhone 13 Pro camera is superb, taking beautiful images in the daylight and capturing bright, sharp shots in the middle of the night. It’s one of the best cameras you can find on a phone, but I’m a photographer, so naturally I’m going to demand more.

The main thing I want here is a bigger zoom. Yes, Apple upped the zoom level to 3x with the iPhone 13 Pro, but that still pales against the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra’s whopping 10x zoom. Zoom lenses are superb tools for finding interesting compositions in your environment, for getting up close on those details that would simply be lost if you took your shot with a wide angle lens. Even the 4x zoom on Google’s new Pixel 6 Pro was enough of a jump to allow for more telephoto-style images.

But while we’re on the camera, I’m always keen to see overall improvements in quality. So let’s also slap an even bigger image sensor in there — maybe a 1-inch size as we’ve seen on Sony’s recent Xperia Pro I, or hell, let’s go APS-C or full frame, if we’re dreaming. The bigger the sensor, the better the overall image quality and with each generation of camera upgrade we’ve had, the less I need to take my camera out with me.

Maybe with the iPhone 14 I can just sell my DSLR and shoot solely on my phone.

USB-C charging to replace Lightning
Apple has adopted USB-C for almost all of its products now from the iPads to the MacBooks to the AirPods. The iPhone still uses Apple’s legacy Lightning port, which makes it the only device on my desk I need to find a different cable for when I want to charge it. All my Android review phones, my tablets and even my mouse and keyboard plug into my USB-C power cables and the iPhone feels somewhat outdated as a result.

But Apple has always had its own ways of charging. When everyone else was using Micro-USB, Apple had that massive 32-pin connector first seen on the iPod and that was a pain, too. So expecting Apple to step in line with the rest of the industry feels about as likely as asking giraffes to maybe try having shorter necks like the rest of us, OK? You too, swans. Donkeys, you’re fine, you’ve got enough going on.

But what I don’t want is for Apple to remove the port entirely, which was rumored when it launched MagSafe charging. Because then, I still need a dedicated charging cable. Plus MagSafe charges slower than the Lightning cable and doesn’t currently support data transfer. You see, it wouldn’t work. So USB-C it is. Thanks. In the meantime, at least I can make use of any USB-C to Lightning cable to get at least half of the convenience I’m looking for.

A foldable iPhone 14
Foldable phones have been the biggest physical design revolution we’ve seen in phones since basically the advent of the smartphone. But they’ve not really caught on — possibly because of their high prices but also possibly because they just don’t really offer a compelling reason to make use of that fold.

But Apple has a decent track record of taking an existing innovation and actually finding a way to make it work well enough to have an impact in our lives. Apple didn’t invent tablets, but the iPad was the first one that really showed how useful they can be, and now it’s basically the only tablet that matters. And I like foldable phones. They’re fun and they allow a big screen that’s great for videos and photo editing to fold in half and be much more pocket friendly.

So I’d love to see Apple’s take on this genre of device and see what its team would do with a product that’s halfway between an iPhone and an iPad. Maybe not as the only phone it launches, but maybe as an additional one, called the iPhone 14 Fold that sits above the iPhone 14 Pro. And while there are only a few foldable iPhone rumors to suggest that this will ever be a real thing, I’d put good money on a working Apple folding phone concept sitting somewhere right now deep down in its research labs on that spaceship campus.

But those are my top five things I’d like to see from the iPhone 14. Some of them are more credible than others but who knows what the rumors will point to over the coming months.

For more, check out all the iPhone 14 rumors we’ve heard so far including its release date and price. You can also take a look at the best features in iOS 15.4 and the iOS 15.5 beta. Plus, we break down the best iPhones you can buy right now.

Meta’s next big virtual reality headset looks to be more expensive and advanced, but it won’t replace the Quest 2.

The Oculus Quest 2 (now called Meta Quest 2) has become a surprisingly successful virtual reality headset and remains our favorite VR device despite being almost two years old. What will Meta, the former Facebook, do for its encore? The company is expected to release four new headsets over the next few years, according to a recent report from The Information. A headset announced last year called “Project Cambria” is on deck for 2022, but don’t expect it to be a true sequel to the Quest 2.

Instead, Project Cambria looks to be a far more expensive and advanced sort of AR/VR hybrid headset, a bridge device that could be an amazing VR device, but could also enable mixed reality combining video from the real world with VR via improved cameras.

Cambria will also add new sensor technology (notably, eye tracking) that could introduce new possibilities for interacting in VR and animating your avatar. But that eye tracking brings questions about data privacy, too.

Stand-alone, like the Quest 2
Yes, Cambria looks to be a stand-alone device like Quest 2. But, also like Quest 2, expect it to optionally connect to PCs and, to some extent, phones. Early reported design mockups show a design that seems smaller than the Quest 2, but according to The Information’s latest reports, a larger battery could mean more weight. Meta has already confirmed the headset will be more compact where the lenses meet the face, using “pancake lenses” that can compress the distance needed to create convincing 3D effects.

The larger battery seems like it could sit on the back of the headset, creating a design that looks more like Microsoft’s Hololens 2, an augmented reality headset, than Meta’s existing Oculus VR goggles. VR devices like the HTC Vive Focus 3 (and Meta’s own battery strap accessory for Quest 2) put batteries on the back of the headset, too.

While recent reports like those from The Information call Cambria a “laptop for your face,” suggesting more self-contained power, expect the headset to connect with computers for more powerful applications much like the Quest 2 can do right now.

More sensors
Mark Zuckerberg, in a conversation with CNET last year, told me that a pro version of the Quest would focus on more sensor technology. Eye and face tracking are already known, but it’s possible that Cambria will allow for more health and fitness tracking. Fitness has been a major focus for Meta’s VR platforms, and the company’s already acquired a subscription fitness service that measures heart rate through a paired Apple Watch. (The Oculus Move app syncs with Apple Health.) Meta is also reportedly working on its own smartwatch.

How will it mix reality?
Project Cambria’s improved external cameras will capture passthrough color video, showing it on the headset’s internal display. The Quest 2 can “see through” and show the outside world, too, but in a grainy black and white video feed. The Quest 2 overlays some VR with this feed, like room boundaries, creating a type of mixed reality. Expect Meta Cambria to do this far more realistically.

I’ve already tried one example of this tech on a very high-end VR headset made by a Finnish company called Varjo. The Varjo XR-3 uses lidar and cameras to scan the real world; it then layers VR into it in a way that can look almost as convincing as the effects in AR headsets made by Microsoft and Magic Leap. I’d expect Meta Cambria to try for something very similar.

Meta’s aspirations for future AR glasses haven’t been realized yet, but the Cambria could end up being a toolkit for developers to make AR-type experiences that could also use hand (and eye) tracking.

How will eye tracking work?
We don’t know the specifics, but most eye tracking in VR works in a similar way: Infrared cameras measure eye movement, while some trackers also capture images of your eye. Eye tracking does a few pretty useful things: Foveated rendering can create better graphics with less processing power by only showing the highest-res details where the fovea of your eyes is looking, potentially meaning better battery life or performance in a smaller headset.

Eye tracking can also be used to create more realistic eye contact for avatars, and to combine with hand tracking and controllers to improve control accuracy. It could even mean better accessibility for people who don’t have full mobility, using only eye controls to operate the VR interface.

Meta looks to be adding face tracking cameras as well as eye tracking, which could be used to map emotions and facial expressions into avatars. But all of this tracking comes with additional privacy questions. While Meta has promised transparency and limits to how tracking data is used, Facebook’s history of user data abuse leaves a lot of concerns.

Odds are, it won’t be as much of a game console
If the Cambria headset is more than $800, there’s no way it will be as popular as the Quest 2 is now. Meta seems to be hinting that’s not the point of Cambria, which means that game developers may not be as focused on the new hardware.

Facebook has a history of funding lots of gaming and art projects on its VR platforms, but it sounds like Cambria may not be about debuting new games. Instead, Meta will likely focus on a wide range of business, training, fitness and AR-crossover apps to help build its metaverse visions. In that sense, current Quest 2 owners might already have the best VR game console for a while (until the PlayStation VR 2 arrives, at least).

The Information’s latest report on the Meta Cambria reinforces that this headset’s greatest strengths — better display resolution, eye tracking, passthrough mixed reality — will be tools to advance Meta’s vision for work and the future of VR. Look to competing high-end VR and AR products like the Vive Focus 3, Hololens 2 and Varjo’s headsets, where professional uses are the clear goal. Meta’s had great success appealing to gamers, but it’ll have a harder time convincing workplaces to adopt its tech.

Should you buy a Quest 2 now or wait for a future Quest 3?
A true successor to the Quest 2 may not happen until 2023, based on recent reports. That Quest 3 is expected to be a headset that would compete at the same price as the Quest 2, and possibly replace it, but not this year. Cambria, however, is not expected to be that headset. If the Cambria headset is as high-priced as Meta says it is, it probably won’t even be competing with the Quest 2 for most shoppers. Instead, it may be more about pushing more advanced features (eye tracking, mixed reality, better display quality) that could eventually trickle down into more affordable products later.

Keep the concepts of “Cambria” and “Quest 3” separate in your head, and it’ll help you plan your buying decisions. Cambria may only end up appealing to enthusiast and pro users with money to spend. I don’t expect any VR headset to be able to compete with Quest 2’s $300 price anytime soon.

The Quest 2 is still a fantastic headset for its price, and Meta keeps updating the software with new features regularly. Unless you’re a professional eager for a top-end headset at any price, you probably don’t need to wait for whatever Cambria ends up becoming later this year. However, if you have a PlayStation 5, you might want to wait and see what the PlayStation VR 2 is like.

If Apple, Google and Microsoft have their way, soon we’ll be thinking of passwords as a bygone relic of the 20th century.

The FIDO Alliance — FIDO is short for “fast identity online” — said Thursday it’s working with the three companies to begin offering passwordless technology to websites and apps. Instead of using unreliable password logins, apps and websites could identify who you are with a fingerprint reader, face scanner or even your phone.

“Working with the industry to establish new, more secure sign-in methods that offer better protection and eliminate the vulnerabilities of passwords is central to our commitment to building products that offer maximum security and a transparent user experience — all with the goal of keeping users’ personal information safe,” Kurt Knight, Apple’s senior director of platform product marketing, said in a statement.

Similarly, Microsoft’s corporate vice president for identity program management, Alex Simons, said any viable product needs to be safer, easier and faster than what we use today. “The complete shift to a passwordless world will begin with consumers making it a natural part of their lives,” he said in a statement.

Google as well said it’s excited for the day “the world can safely move away from the risk and hassle of passwords.”

The announcement by the tech companies and FIDO underscore the industry’s efforts to fight the seemingly never-ending onslaught of hacking attacks that lead to theft of people’s personal information, financial fraud and security breaches at companies and governments around the world.

Read more: Make Your Passwords Stronger With These 5 Tips

Many experts agree that people’s tendency to use easily hackable passwords, and to use the same ones across many websites and apps, is one of the most important problems to solve. To do so, some people have turned to password managers, which store randomized passwords behind a central app that runs on their phone or computer. Many apps, websites and companies also now use two-factor authentication, which often sends a second password by phone or in an app, for the person to enter within a short period of time.

FIDO is hoping to streamline all these efforts into a technology standard that apps, websites and device makers can all trust and rely on. Its announcement, made in conjunction with World Password Day — intended to encourage people to do a better job securing their accounts — highlights how FIDO technology is hopefully becoming easier to use.

While FIDO is already used by hundreds of device makers and service providers, the alliance said that making its technology interoperable with more websites and apps will make it more appealing.

FIDO said it expects the new capabilities announced Thursday to arrive on devices powered by software from Apple, Google and Microsoft in the next year. We’ll likely hear more over the next month, during which all three companies typically hold their annual developer conferences to discuss new features they’re planning to offer.

Large tech companies such as Google and Facebook will have to abide by new competition rules in the UK or risk facing huge fines, the government said.

The new Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will be given powers to clamp down on “predatory practices” of some firms.

The regulator will also have the power to fine companies up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to comply.

Besides boosting competition among tech firms, the rules also aim to give users more control over their data.

The BBC approached several of the big tech firms, including Apple, Meta and Google, but has received no response.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said as well as large fines, tech firms could be handed additional penalties of 5% of daily global turnover for each day an offence continues.

For companies like Apple that could be tens of billions of US dollars.

“Senior managers will face civil penalties if their firms fail to engage properly with requests for information,” the government said.

However, it is unclear when exactly the changes will come into force, as the government has said the necessary legislation will be introduced “in due course”.

Europe agrees new law to curb Big Tech dominance
Digital minister Chris Philp said the government wanted to “level the playing field” in the technology industry, in which a few American companies have been accused of abusing their market dominance.

“The dominance of a few tech giants is crowding out competition and stifling innovation,” he said.

As well attempting to hold Big Tech to account, the DMU will look to give people more control over how their data is used by tech firms – for example with targeted personalised adverts.

It will also make it easier for people to switch between phone operating systems such as Apple iOS or Android and social media accounts, without losing data and messages.

Critics have called such closed systems “walled gardens” that lock consumers into using products from a specific company.

Google’s search engine, which is currently the default search engine on Apple products, will also be looked at by the regulator, the government said.

It added it wants news publishers to be paid fairly for their content – and will give the regulator power to resolve conflicts.

This move is in response to friction between Meta, Google and news publishers. The argument is that while many local and national news organisations struggle to survive, Big Tech companies are posting record profits – and raising advertising revenue from the stories they produce.

Meta and Google argue that the relationship is symbiotic, that they direct traffic towards news organisations.

Last year the situation escalated, when a proposed law in Australia looking to “level the playing the field” resulted in Facebook temporarily blocking Australian news organisations – before an agreement was reached.

The UK government said its new rules could increase the “bargaining power” of national and regional newspapers.

The issue of big tech and competition has been troubling the authorities for quite some time.

There’s no question that a handful of giants hugely dominate the market and hoover up considerable profits.

They have a captive market and they don’t want to share it. Google search is so popular “to google” is a commonly used verb. Around 90% of all internet searches are on Google’s search engine. But many have queried whether one company should have such a dominant position over a crucial part of the internet.

It also leaves businesses with little choice. Want to advertise to people searching for football boots in your area? Google would be the obvious choice. But critics argue that that its monopoly means the company can charge what it likes – and that’s ultimately bad for a healthy and competitive economy.

The UK’s new regulator has decided to focus the minds of these firms with eye-watering fines for not allowing fair competition – 10% global turnover and an extra 5% per day if the offence continues. That is mega money – even for companies worth trillions of dollars. It’s enough to get their attention.

2px presentational grey line
Also included in the plans is a move to give firms like Meta and Apple “strategic market status”, which will mean they will have to report takeovers before they complete to the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) for potential investigation.

Big Tech has long been criticised for buying up competition, as part of a strategy to “copy, acquire, kill”.

The criticism here is that fledgling business are bought up before they have the chance to get too big – and threaten the monopoly position of these companies.

Separately, it had been rumoured that the DMU would not be given a legal footing – and would therefore lack bite, however the government has said it will introduce legislation to put the regulator on a statutory footing in “due course.”

The consumer group Which? said it was “essential that the Digital Markets Unit is properly empowered” for the “sake of UK consumers and businesses”.

In an open letter, employees say Apple’s hybrid plan offers “almost no flexibility at all.”

A group of Apple employees is demanding more flexibility from the tech giant ahead of its planned return to office work later this month. In an open letter, the group, calling itself Apple Together, said the company’s plan for many employees to be in the office three fixed days a week offers “almost no flexibility at all” and could be damaging to diversity.

“The Hybrid Working Pilot is not an increase in flexibility, it is a smokescreen and often a step back in flexibility for many of our teams,” reads the letter, which was posted Friday and earlier reported by CNN. “We are not asking for everyone to be forced to work from home. We are asking to decide for ourselves, together with our teams and direct manager, what kind of arrangement works best for each one of us, be that in an office, work from home, or a hybrid approach.”

Like other tech companies, Apple delayed its return-to-office plans several times amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The iPhone maker now expects many employees to work in office at least three days a week by May 23, reported Bloomberg, though some teams may be required to be in the office more often.

Apple has already faced public pushback from some employees who’ve asked it to consider more-flexible work options, though the company’s leadership has stressed that it believes in-person collaboration is essential.

About 200 employees are engaging in the Apple Together group, according to CNN, a small portion of the company’s US workforce. The group says Apple has 100,000 direct employees in the US, including retail workers.

The Apple Together group also alleged that the hybrid plan could change the makeup of Apple’s workforce, saying it will make the company “younger, whiter, more male-dominated,” by squeezing out those who can’t relocate for a position or afford to pay for family care. In the letter, the group also said the hybrid plan doesn’t reflect the message Apple sends to customers that its products are great for remote work.

“We tell all of our customers how great our products are for remote work,” reads the letter, “yet, we ourselves, cannot use them to work remotely? How can we expect our customers to take that seriously?”

Commentary: Apple should borrow some of the iPad’s tricks to make better use of the iPhone Pro Max’s big screen.

The iPhone 13 Pro Max and 12 Pro Max are the biggest smartphones Apple has ever made. Both devices have a 6.7-inch screen, making them significantly larger than the standard 6.1-inch iPhone 13, 5.4-inch iPhone 13 Mini and 4.7-inch iPhone SE. While the hardware varies, all iPhones generally run the same software despite their size. If only there were more ways to make use of the Pro Max’s larger screen.

Luckily, there is. Apple should draw inspiration from the iPhone’s larger cousin, the iPad. Apple’s tablets are loaded with extra features that make apps easier to use on a larger screen. The company even renamed the iPad’s software “iPadOS” in 2019 to distinguish it from the iPhone’s iOS. The iPad’s interface had evolved so much by that point, it no longer made sense to lump both operating systems together.

I’m not suggesting something as drastic as a rebranding to “Pro Max OS.” But I do think both Apple and its customers could benefit from iOS 16, the next major iPhone software version, having new features that are specific to the larger-size iPhone.

Doing so wouldn’t be simple. Modifications would need to be made to bring iPad-specific features like multitasking to the iPhone Pro Max. But Apple already has a history of tailoring apps and software to specific products, as it proved with the original iPad and Apple Watch. So I’d trust it to do the same in this case.

Here are the iPad features I think would translate well to the iPhone Pro Max.

The iPhone Pro Max’s large screen is great for focusing on a single app, like reading or watching TV. But I’d love to see a version of the iPad’s multitasking capabilities on the iPhone Pro Max too. Being able to view more than one app on screen could prevent me from switching between apps so often.

Apple offers two main options for running multiple apps on the iPad’s display: Split View and Slide Over. The first is self-explanatory; it lets you divide the screen between two apps. Android phones have also offered split-screen mode for years. Slide Over is a bit different. Instead of splitting the screen, you can open an app in a floating panel that can be positioned on either side of the screen.

If Apple were to bring any of these features to the iPhone Pro Max, I think Slide Over would be the most useful. Compared to Split View mode, it’s a better way to make use of a smartphone-size screen. You’d be able to dedicate most of the screen to one app while quickly checking another. I’d love to glance at my Slack messages in a column along the side of my screen while using most of the iPhone’s display to catch up on emails.

This is an example of an iPad feature that Apple would likely have to tweak significantly for the iPhone rather than bringing over the current version. The iPhone Pro Max is big for a phone, but it’s still small compared to an iPad — even the iPad Mini.

One way Apple could make this work is by formatting Slide Over apps like interactive widgets that you can view while running another app. Widgets are already designed to display a lot of information in a space that only occupies a fraction of your phone’s screen. As such, it’s easy to imagine widget-like Slide Over apps that you can pin to any corner of the iPhone Pro Max’s display.

Still, getting the iPad’s multitasking features on the iPhone Pro Max is a long shot. Part of the iPhone’s appeal is that the software is consistent no matter which model you own, so I doubt Apple will jeopardize that. In the meantime, we are stuck with the handful of existing iPhone Pro Max-specific features that were actually introduced for the iPhone 6 Plus. For example, default apps like Mail and Messages take advantage of the iPhone Pro Max’s larger display in landscape mode to show a column of message previews alongside the currently viewed message.

Yes, I know Steve Jobs famously ridiculed the idea of using a stylus with a mobile device. But hear me out. The Apple Pencil has proven itself to be a valuable iPad companion over the last several years. Now, it’s time to bring it to the iPhone Pro Max as an optional accessory.

I’m not alone in wishing for an iPhone-compatible Apple Pencil. My colleague Patrick Holland has been begging for an Apple Pencil since he reviewed the iPhone 12 Pro Max in 2020, saying a MagSafe Apple Pencil would be “a killer accessory.”

First, consider the iPhone Pro Max’s audience. It’s for people who are willing to pay top dollar for the biggest screen and best camera available on an iPhone. The Apple Pencil seems like a natural addition to the Pro Max, both for photographers and those who just want a giant screen.

I imagine those who frequently touch up photos on their phone would benefit from editing with a stylus that’s more precise than a finger, especially since popular apps like Adobe Lightroom and Pixelmator have Apple Pencil support. An iPhone-friendly Apple Pencil could also appeal to those who often take notes or mark up documents from their phones. The rumored iPhone 14 Max, which would be a 6.7-inch version of the standard iPhone, would benefit as well from an optional pencil accessory.

The success of Samsung’s Galaxy Note line (which has now been consolidated into the Galaxy S Ultra family) also suggests there’s an audience for styluses. I have to admit I don’t find myself using the Galaxy S22 Ultra’s S Pen very often. But it has come in handy for jotting down notes during meetings or quickly capturing thoughts when I’m writing a review and happen to be away from my computer.

Again, it wouldn’t make sense to just expand the current Apple Pencil’s compatibility to the iPhone Pro Max. Instead, Apple should design a smaller version of the Pencil with a smaller tip that’s better suited for a phone-size screen.

A win for Apple and its customers

With or without these features, the iPhone Pro Max is already a hit. The iPhone 12 Pro Max was the world’s second-best-selling phone in 2021, according to data from Counterpoint Research.

There’s clearly a demand for larger-size iPhones, as evidenced by rumors that Apple will replace the iPhone Mini with another 6.7-inch iPhone this year.

But why not do more with the Pro Max? It would be a great way for Apple to further distinguish the Pro Max from its smaller and less-expensive iPhones. The additional software features would also give owners more for the price, while a Pencil would provide Apple with another opportunity to make money from current iPhone Pro Max owners. It seems like a win-win scenario.

The iPhone Pro Max’s lack of multitasking and Apple Pencil support aren’t necessarily shortcomings. But it feels like Apple is missing an opportunity.

Apple says COVID-19 disruptions and silicon shortages are hitting its business, though seemingly not as much as some other tech giants.

At nearly 15 years old, Apple’s iPhone is one of the most popular consumer products of all time. During the holidays, it helped Apple ring up record revenues and profits. And even now, with war overseas and nagging inflation at home, Apple’s fortunes are still largely tied to the iPhone.

The good news: People still keep buying them.

For its second fiscal quarter, covering the three months ending in March, Apple notched $50.6 billion in sales of iPhones, up more than 5% from the year prior. Its Mac computers, wearables and accessories continued to sell strongly as well.

But Apple warned that manufacturing and trade disruptions from COVID-19, combined with the ongoing silicon shortage, means things will likely get worse over the next few months.

“These times remind us that we cannot know what the future may hold,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said during a conference call with analysts Thursday. COVID disruptions, he noted, have been difficult to predict. He noted that disruptions from recent health lockdowns in China, among other issues, will add up to between $4 billion and $8 billion in unsold products because of lack of inventory. And that’s “substantially worse” than what happened over the past three months.

Apple’s stock closed regular trading up nearly 5% to $163.64 per share. The company’s shares have fallen about 10% so far this year.

Apple’s announcement is the latest sign of the tech giant’s staying power in a time of economic uncertainty. Major Wall Street indexes have lost value this month, with notable drops among tech stocks. Google parent Alphabet reported lower than expected sales and profit Tuesday, disappointing investors. The next day, Facebook parent Meta reported widening losses in its Reality Labs division, which makes virtual reality headsets and other associated technologies. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he believes Reality Labs is key to the company’s future.

Other tech companies have released concerning data as well. Netflix told investors last week that it actually lost subscribers, and expected to lose 2 million more. And Amazon on Thursday said fuel prices ate into its profits.

More broadly, Russia’s invasion of and subsequent war with Ukraine has rippled across the world, rattling markets for oil, wheat and other items that both countries contribute to the world economy. Meanwhile, surging COVID-19 cases in China have prompted extended lockdowns in manufacturing facilities and at ports, disrupting food supplies and upsetting residents, leading to slowed manufacturing and trade.

Apple, though, continues to navigate those challenges enough to continue growing its business.

Non-iPhone business growing
The company reported increased sales for its Mac division, for which about half of customers were new to its computers.

Apple’s wearables business, meanwhile, grew to the size of a Fortune 100 company, the company noted, with more than two-thirds of people buying Apple Watches being new to the product.

Apple’s services, which won its first Oscar with the Apple TV Plus movie CODA, rose more than 17% to $19.8 billion. That makes services, which also include subscriptions like Apple Music streaming and Apple Arcade gaming, its second-largest division behind the iPhone. Apple said it counted 825 million accounts with paid subscriptions on its platform, an increase of 17% from the year prior.

“We’ve added a lot of new services, and we plan to add new services and new features that we believe that our customers will love,” Apple CFO Luca Maestri told analysts Thursday.

Overall, Apple said it recorded profits of $25 billion, up nearly 6% from last year. That translates to $1.52 per share in profit, off $97.28 billion in overall revenue, which itself was up 9% from the $89.58 billion reported last year. It also beat analyst estimates, which were $1.43 in profit per share on $93.9 billion in sales for the three months ended in March, according to surveys published by Yahoo Finance.