<p>So, Google won't have to split its Chrome browser into a separate entity, at least for now. That is a blow for those who were hoping that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) would cleave off Google’s search empire by forcing a sell-off of its flagship browser. The DOJ rejected the spinoff idea despite a federal judge confirming Google’s illegal monopoly in online search. Once again, Google has escaped with its core power structures intact. The reason may lie in its lesser-known Chromium project. Here is what you should know.</p><h2>Why didn’t the DOJ agree to split off Chrome from Google?</h2><p>The reason appears to be how complex, messy, and potentially disruptive it would be for users if Chrome—the browser used by two-thirds of global internet users—were to be divested from Google. The DOJ ruling issued on Tuesday (Sep 2) is less about protecting users and more about institutional caution in the face of unprecedented corporate power.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/perplexity-ai-makes-bold-34-5-billion-offer-to-acquire-google-chrome-amid-antitrust-scrutiny-1755069659262"><strong>Also read: Perplexity AI makes bold $34.5 billion offer to acquire Google Chrome amid antitrust scrutiny</strong></a></p><h2>Chrome is the hidden engine of Google’s monopoly</h2><p>While Chrome does not directly generate massive revenue, it funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into Google’s ecosystem by ensuring users stay locked into its services—especially Search. In the third quarter of 2024 alone, Google earned $49.4 billion through search advertising.</p><p>Chrome is not just another browser; it is the gateway to Google’s ad empire—the cash cow.</p><h2>How big is the Chrome browser?</h2><p>Chrome currently commands a dominant 66 per cent share of the global browser market. In the United States alone, it handles over 51 per cent of browser traffic. The only real competition—browsers like Safari, Firefox, and Microsoft Edge—are far behind.</p><p>In fact, many of these "competitors" benefit from their ties to Google. Apple reportedly receives around $20 billion annually from Google to keep Google Search as the default on Safari. Mozilla, which develops Firefox browser, earns approximately $500 million per year from a similar search deal—making it financially dependent on Google.</p><p>Chrome is also deeply integrated into Google's larger ecosystem: Gmail, Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Calendar, and others. For most users, using Chrome is not an informed choice: It is simply the default.</p><p>Then there’s Chromium. You may not have heard of it—but you should. Here's why.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/openai-to-release-ai-powered-web-browser-challenge-google-chrome-1752092117457"><strong>Also read: OpenAI to release AI-powered web browser, challenge Google Chrome</strong></a></p><h2>What is Chromium, the puppet master enabling and sustaining Chrome’s dominance?</h2><p>Even if Google were forced to sell Chrome, its power wouldn't be significantly reduced because it owns and controls Chromium—the open-source browser engine that powers Chrome and other major browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Opera, Brave, and Samsung Internet.</p><p>Chromium is the backbone of over 70 per cent of browsers in use worldwide. To use an analogy: imagine Exxon no longer sells petrol but still owns the pipeline infrastructure used by all other oil companies. That is what Chromium is in the browser ecosystem.</p><p>Though Chromium is technically open-source, Google funds and controls its development. Other browsers can build their features and interfaces on top of it, but ultimately, Google determines the roadmap and architecture. This gives Google enormous influence over how the internet functions.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-startup-makes-34-5-billion-bid-for-google-s-chrome-browser-1755105185231/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-startup-makes-34-5-billion-bid-for-google-s-chrome-browser-1755105185231/embed</a></p><p>For example, the controversial "Manifest V3" update pushed through Chromium restricts ad blockers across all Chromium-based browsers. This reinforces Google’s advertising business while weakening privacy-focused competitors.</p><p>So, even if Chrome were sold to a new company, Chromium would continue to tie other browsers to Google’s development direction. Competitors like Edge or Opera are merely passengers on Google’s technological ship.</p><p>Rivals like Firefox and Safari, which use their own rendering engines (Gecko and WebKit, respectively), often face compatibility issues. Many websites today are optimised specifically for Chromium, leading to slower performance or broken features on non-Chromium browsers.</p><p>And Google pays to keep it that way. Apple continues to receive massive sums to maintain Google Search as the default. Mozilla’s revenue is largely funded by Google. In other words, even the “competition” is financially tethered to the monopoly.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/google-keeps-chrome-us-judge-asks-it-to-share-data-advantage-to-ai-rivals-1756877061381"><strong>Also read: Google keeps Chrome, US judge asks it to share data; advantage&nbsp;to AI rivals</strong></a></p><h2>Then, why did the DOJ miss the opportunity to curb the Chrome monopoly?</h2><p>Judge Amit Mehta’s reasoning was that forcing Google to divest Chrome would be risky and could potentially harm consumers. Chrome is tightly integrated into Google’s infrastructure—for example, through Sync, Safe Browsing, and automated updates. A new owner might struggle to ensure a seamless user experience.</p><p>In addition, the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit specifically targeted Google’s control over “search distribution,” not browser ownership. As a result, Mehta concluded that a forced sale of Chrome would go beyond the scope of the case.</p><p>Instead of breaking up the company, the court’s remedies involve banning exclusive default agreements (like Google’s deals with Apple), requiring Google to share its search data with rival companies, and allowing the market to “self-correct” over time.</p><h2>But we’ve been here before: How the US failed to rein in Microsoft</h2><p>In the early 2000s, the DOJ took Microsoft to court for bundling its then-dominant browser, Internet Explorer, with its Windows operating system. After years of litigation, the final ruling resulted in minor behavioural remedies. Microsoft’s market dominance continued for nearly a decade.</p><p>It wasn’t until Google Chrome entered the market that Internet Explorer’s hold was broken. Microsoft eventually shut it down and launched Edge, which, ironically, is now based on Chromium.</p><p>Taking on Google is even more difficult. It doesn't just control a browser. It owns the browser (Chrome), the engine (Chromium), the search engine (Google Search), the ad platform (AdSense), the cloud (Google Cloud), and the emerging AI infrastructure (Gemini)—all under one corporate roof.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/google-chrome-emerges-as-the-most-vulnerable-browser-in-2022-report-523315"><strong>Also read: Is Google Chrome really the 'most vulnerable' browser?</strong></a></p><h2>Google gets a rap on the wrist—but is it too little, too late?</h2><p>The DOJ’s decision to block exclusive deals and mandate data-sharing may slow Google down, but it does not dismantle the structural monopoly. Chrome continues to funnel users into Google Search. Chromium ensures that all other browsers either comply or face a technical disadvantage. And Google earns ad revenue from nearly every search, regardless of the browser used.</p><h2>It’s nearly impossible to regulate open-source infrastructure—and that’s how Google wins</h2><p>Open-source code is used by both commercial and non-profit ventures. Legally regulating it—especially something as complex as Chromium—is a minefield. That makes it nearly impossible for regulators to directly curb Google’s influence through this route.</p><p>As of now, Google walks away practically untouched. Its ad pipeline remains intact. Its browser remains unbroken. Its “competitors” remain tethered to its ecosystem.</p><p>Chrome is not just a browser. It’s a gateway. A control mechanism. A way to shape how billions of people access and experience the internet.</p><p>Allowing Chrome to remain under Google’s wing and leaving Chromium untouched may be a de facto endorsement of the modern monopoly. Perhaps the real issue is that regulators—trained for 20th-century industrial monopolies—are ill-equipped to handle digital platforms built on open-source, distributed, and technically complex foundations.</p><p>Google isn’t an oil baron or a railroad tycoon. It’s something new. And until regulators develop the tools to address this new kind of monopoly, Google will continue to dominate—unshaken and unchallenged.</p>

The US Justice Department’s refusal to split the Chrome browser may look like a compromise, but Google’s grip on the web remains ironclad. Its open-source browser architecture, under the project known as Chromium, is the reason it got away. Here’s what you should know.

So, Google won't have to split its Chrome browser into a separate entity, at least for now. That is a blow for those who were hoping that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) would cleave off Google’s search empire by forcing a sell-off of its flagship browser. The DOJ rejected the spinoff idea despite a federal judge confirming Google’s illegal monopoly in online search. Once again, Google has escaped with its core power structures intact. The reason may lie in its lesser-known Chromium project. Here is what you should know. Why didn’t the DOJ agree to split off Chrome from Google? The reason appears to be how complex, messy, and potentially disruptive it would be for users if Chrome—the browser used by two-thirds of global internet users—were to be divested from Google. The DOJ ruling issued on Tuesday (Sep 2) is less about protecting users and more about institutional caution in the face of unprecedented corporate power. Also read: Perplexity AI makes bold $34.5 billion offer to acquire Google Chrome amid antitrust scrutiny Chrome is the hidden engine of Google’s monopoly While Chrome does not directly generate massive revenue, it funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into Google’s ecosystem by ensuring users stay locked into its services—especially Search. In the third quarter of 2024 alone, Google earned $49.4 billion through search advertising. Chrome is not just another browser; it is the gateway to Google’s ad empire—the cash cow. How big is the Chrome browser? Chrome currently commands a dominant 66 per cent share of the global browser market. In the United States alone, it handles over 51 per cent of browser traffic. The only real competition—browsers like Safari, Firefox, and Microsoft Edge—are far behind. In fact, many of these "competitors" benefit from their ties to Google. Apple reportedly receives around $20 billion annually from Google to keep Google Search as the default on Safari. Mozilla, which develops Firefox browser, earns approximately $500 million per year from a similar search deal—making it financially dependent on Google. Chrome is also deeply integrated into Google's larger ecosystem: Gmail, Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Calendar, and others. For most users, using Chrome is not an informed choice: It is simply the default. Then there’s Chromium. You may not have heard of it—but you should. Here's why. Also read: OpenAI to release AI-powered web browser, challenge Google Chrome What is Chromium, the puppet master enabling and sustaining Chrome’s dominance? Even if Google were forced to sell Chrome, its power wouldn't be significantly reduced because it owns and controls Chromium—the open-source browser engine that powers Chrome and other major browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Opera, Brave, and Samsung Internet. Chromium is the backbone of over 70 per cent of browsers in use worldwide. To use an analogy: imagine Exxon no longer sells petrol but still owns the pipeline infrastructure used by all other oil companies. That is what Chromium is in the browser ecosystem. Though Chromium is technically open-source, Google funds and controls its development. Other browsers can build their features and interfaces on top of it, but ultimately, Google determines the roadmap and architecture. This gives Google enormous influence over how the internet functions. https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-startup-makes-34-5-billion-bid-for-google-s-chrome-browser-1755105185231/embed For example, the controversial "Manifest V3" update pushed through Chromium restricts ad blockers across all Chromium-based browsers. This reinforces Google’s advertising business while weakening privacy-focused competitors. So, even if Chrome were sold to a new company, Chromium would continue to tie other browsers to Google’s development direction. Competitors like Edge or Opera are merely passengers on Google’s technological ship. Rivals like Firefox and Safari, which use their own rendering engines (Gecko and WebKit, respectively), often face compatibility issues. Many websites today are optimised specifically for Chromium, leading to slower performance or broken features on non-Chromium browsers. And Google pays to keep it that way. Apple continues to receive massive sums to maintain Google Search as the default. Mozilla’s revenue is largely funded by Google. In other words, even the “competition” is financially tethered to the monopoly. Also read: Google keeps Chrome, US judge asks it to share data; advantage to AI rivals Then, why did the DOJ miss the opportunity to curb the Chrome monopoly? Judge Amit Mehta’s reasoning was that forcing Google to divest Chrome would be risky and could potentially harm consumers. Chrome is tightly integrated into Google’s infrastructure—for example, through Sync, Safe Browsing, and automated updates. A new owner might struggle to ensure a seamless user experience. In addition, the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit specifically targeted Google’s control over “search distribution,” not browser ownership. As a result, Mehta concluded that a forced sale of Chrome would go beyond the scope of the case. Instead of breaking up the company, the court’s remedies involve banning exclusive default agreements (like Google’s deals with Apple), requiring Google to share its search data with rival companies, and allowing the market to “self-correct” over time. But we’ve been here before: How the US failed to rein in Microsoft In the early 2000s, the DOJ took Microsoft to court for bundling its then-dominant browser, Internet Explorer, with its Windows operating system. After years of litigation, the final ruling resulted in minor behavioural remedies. Microsoft’s market dominance continued for nearly a decade. It wasn’t until Google Chrome entered the market that Internet Explorer’s hold was broken. Microsoft eventually shut it down and launched Edge, which, ironically, is now based on Chromium. Taking on Google is even more difficult. It doesn't just control a browser. It owns the browser (Chrome), the engine (Chromium), the search engine (Google Search), the ad platform (AdSense), the cloud (Google Cloud), and the emerging AI infrastructure (Gemini)—all under one corporate roof. Also read: Is Google Chrome really the 'most vulnerable' browser? Google gets a rap on the wrist—but is it too little, too late? The DOJ’s decision to block exclusive deals and mandate data-sharing may slow Google down, but it does not dismantle the structural monopoly. Chrome continues to funnel users into Google Search. Chromium ensures that all other browsers either comply or face a technical disadvantage. And Google earns ad revenue from nearly every search, regardless of the browser used. It’s nearly impossible to regulate open-source infrastructure—and that’s how Google wins Open-source code is used by both commercial and non-profit ventures. Legally regulating it—especially something as complex as Chromium—is a minefield. That makes it nearly impossible for regulators to directly curb Google’s influence through this route. As of now, Google walks away practically untouched. Its ad pipeline remains intact. Its browser remains unbroken. Its “competitors” remain tethered to its ecosystem. Chrome is not just a browser. It’s a gateway. A control mechanism. A way to shape how billions of people access and experience the internet. Allowing Chrome to remain under Google’s wing and leaving Chromium untouched may be a de facto endorsement of the modern monopoly. Perhaps the real issue is that regulators—trained for 20th-century industrial monopolies—are ill-equipped to handle digital platforms built on open-source, distributed, and technically complex foundations. Google isn’t an oil baron or a railroad tycoon. It’s something new. And until regulators develop the tools to address this new kind of monopoly, Google will continue to dominate—unshaken and unchallenged.

<p>The US Justice Department’s refusal to split the Chrome browser may look like a compromise, but Google’s grip on the web remains ironclad. Its open-source browser architecture, under the project known as Chromium, is the reason it got away. Here’s what you should know.</p>

Google IS a monopoly, but US can't touch it: Chrome escaped breakup partly due to Chromium. But what is it?

<p>If you think the unveiling of Vikram, India's first fully indigenous semiconductor chip, is just another science event, read this. The launch of the 32-bit chip is India's announcement to the world that it has joined the global semiconductor race, often called the 'chip war'. Here is what you should know about chip wars, who the main contenders are, and why the unveiling of the Vikram chip by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Semicon India 2025 in New Delhi on Tuesday (Sep 2), is a milestone event with far-reaching ramifications.</p><h2>What is the Vikram chip?</h2><p>India's first fully indigenous semiconductor chip, the Vikram 32-bit processor, was developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Semiconductor Laboratory. The formal presentation of the chip to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Union Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw marked India’s official entry into the global race to dominate the semiconductor industry.</p><p>The primary function of the Vikram 32-bit processor is to withstand the harsh conditions of space launches.</p><p>Vikram, named after the iconic leader of the Indian space programme Vikram Sarabhai, supports the Ada programming language, features floating-point computation capabilities, and uses open-source software toolsets.</p><p>The Vikram chip was validated during the PSLV-C60 mission for its reliability for use in aerospace, defence, automotive, and energy sectors.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/semicon-india-2025-what-s-vikram-india-s-first-semiconductor-chip-1756805088457"><strong>Semicon India 2025: What's Vikram, India's first semiconductor chip</strong></a></p><h2>Why semiconductors matter: Emergence of the global chip war</h2><p>Chips are in everything from smartphones and computers to defence systems, space technology, and healthcare. And Vikram is a symbol of India’s ambition to reduce dependency on imported electronics and assert strategic autonomy in the tech sector, critical for economic growth and national security.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/semicon-india-2025-pm-modi-unveils-vikram-india-s-first-homegrown-32-bit-microchip-1756790948329"><strong>Semicon India 2025: PM Modi unveils Vikram, India's first homegrown 32-bit microchip</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Chip wars became a key aspect of global geopolitics since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, after the pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in the global semiconductor supply chain.</p><p>At the time, a shortage of chips severely affected industries including automotive and electronics, highlighting how much of the world relies on chip production concentrated in East Asia, mainly in Taiwan.<br>The chip wars contributed to US-China tensions. The US placed tight export curbs on China, particularly on advanced chips below the 9nm node. It was seen as an American attempt to block China’s progress in semiconductor innovation. China launched the “Made in China 2025” strategy, with an aim to dominate critical technologies including chips.</p><h2>Taiwan, the small big nation in chip wars</h2><p>Taiwan – a democracy that China considers as its territory that should be united with the mainland even if by force – dominates the chip industry, making 60 per cent of the world’s semiconductors and nearly 90 per cent of the most advanced ones.</p><p>South Korea, Japan, and China are the other major producers. Together, this means that only a handful of countries in Asia dominate chip manufacturing capability.</p><p>Now, nations that can make smaller and more efficient chips, such as those at 3nm or 5nm nodes, will have a strategic advantage, as these advanced semiconductors are powering emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, defence systems, and 6G telecom networks.</p><h2>Who are the top semiconductor firms?</h2><p>Taiwan’s TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) is the undisputed world leader, making over 60 percent of the world’s chips and nearly 90 percent of advanced chips. South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix are strong in memory chips and advanced fabrication.</p><p>While the US excels in chip design with firms like Intel, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm, the manufacturing of many of these chips is not happening in the country.</p><p>China’s SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation) continues to develop despite US sanctions, though it lags in advanced chip production.</p><p>Japan’s Renesas Electronics and Toshiba are important contributors, especially in automotive and industrial sectors.</p><p>From design to assembly, these countries and corporations control crucial stages of the semiconductor supply chain.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/semicon-india-cg-power-abb-india-which-semiconductor-stock-prices-saw-an-upsurge-1756797931880"><strong>Also read: Semicon India: CG Power, ABB India - which semiconductor stock prices saw an upsurge</strong></a></p><h2>Why India’s Semicon India 2025 is a defining moment in the global chip race</h2><p>This is the context in which India’s Semicon India 2025, being held from September 2 to 4 at Yashobhoomi in New Delhi, assumes significance.</p><p>The event aims to catapult India to a global hub for both chip design and manufacturing.</p><p>With more than 20,750 participants, including 2,500 delegates from 48 countries in attendance, it is more than just another science show. How the world is eager to have India join the chip race is evident from 150 speakers and more than 350 exhibitors.</p><p>Global CEOs, researchers, and policymakers are discussing topics such as smart manufacturing, advanced packaging, research and development, and investment opportunities.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-in-japan-india-eyes-ai-semiconductors-quantum-tech-with-japan-1756461532526/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-in-japan-india-eyes-ai-semiconductors-quantum-tech-with-japan-1756461532526/embed</a></p><h2>What you should know about India's semiconductor mission</h2><p>The South Asian nation's chip journey is driven by the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM). Launched in 2021, ISM is supported by a ₹76,000 crore ($9.1 billion) Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. So far, nearly ₹65,000 crore has been committed to 10 approved projects across six states – Gujarat, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh. Five semiconductor units are already under construction, and two are expected to begin chip production soon.</p><p>Prime Minister Modi, during his address, described India as a “lighthouse of stability and growth” amid global policy uncertainties.</p><p>India’s goal is to capture 5 percent of the global semiconductor market by 2030, when the domestic chip market is expected to be valued at $100–110 billion.</p><h2>But India has a long way to go in the semiconductor industry</h2><p>It has to be noted that the Vikram chip may not compete with Taiwan’s 3nm chips – it is built using 28 to 90nm nodes. But it is strategically designed for high-volume applications such as power management, automotive controllers, and IoT devices, which have significant economic and strategic value.</p><p>While initiatives under ISM can help India survive global headwinds, tech embargoes, and economic warfare, India has a long way to go in the chip race. Over the past decade, India’s electronics production has increased six times, and electronics exports grew eight-fold, yet challenges remain. India needs capabilities to produce advanced semiconductors like the 3nm chips. The manufacturing ecosystem needs to grow, and needs more sustained investment, a skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure.</p><p>India's biggest advantages are the large consumer market and proven engineering capabilities.</p><p>The global semiconductor industry is set to be worth $1 trillion by 2030. The Vikram chip is a pivotal moment for India's advances in the sector, and the beginning of its transition from a consumer of semiconductors to a producer.</p>

India's Vikram chip, unveiled at Semicon India 2025, is a pivotal moment for the nation. It is not only a step toward tech self-reliance but also marks the start of India as an emerging chip producer. Here is why you should take note

If you think the unveiling of Vikram, India's first fully indigenous semiconductor chip, is just another science event, read this. The launch of the 32-bit chip is India's announcement to the world that it has joined the global semiconductor race, often called the 'chip war'. Here is what you should know about chip wars, who the main contenders are, and why the unveiling of the Vikram chip by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Semicon India 2025 in New Delhi on Tuesday (Sep 2), is a milestone event with far-reaching ramifications. What is the Vikram chip? India's first fully indigenous semiconductor chip, the Vikram 32-bit processor, was developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Semiconductor Laboratory. The formal presentation of the chip to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Union Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw marked India’s official entry into the global race to dominate the semiconductor industry. The primary function of the Vikram 32-bit processor is to withstand the harsh conditions of space launches. Vikram, named after the iconic leader of the Indian space programme Vikram Sarabhai, supports the Ada programming language, features floating-point computation capabilities, and uses open-source software toolsets. The Vikram chip was validated during the PSLV-C60 mission for its reliability for use in aerospace, defence, automotive, and energy sectors. Also read: Semicon India 2025: What's Vikram, India's first semiconductor chip Why semiconductors matter: Emergence of the global chip war Chips are in everything from smartphones and computers to defence systems, space technology, and healthcare. And Vikram is a symbol of India’s ambition to reduce dependency on imported electronics and assert strategic autonomy in the tech sector, critical for economic growth and national security. Also read: Semicon India 2025: PM Modi unveils Vikram, India's first homegrown 32-bit microchip Chip wars became a key aspect of global geopolitics since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, after the pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in the global semiconductor supply chain. At the time, a shortage of chips severely affected industries including automotive and electronics, highlighting how much of the world relies on chip production concentrated in East Asia, mainly in Taiwan. The chip wars contributed to US-China tensions. The US placed tight export curbs on China, particularly on advanced chips below the 9nm node. It was seen as an American attempt to block China’s progress in semiconductor innovation. China launched the “Made in China 2025” strategy, with an aim to dominate critical technologies including chips. Taiwan, the small big nation in chip wars Taiwan – a democracy that China considers as its territory that should be united with the mainland even if by force – dominates the chip industry, making 60 per cent of the world’s semiconductors and nearly 90 per cent of the most advanced ones. South Korea, Japan, and China are the other major producers. Together, this means that only a handful of countries in Asia dominate chip manufacturing capability. Now, nations that can make smaller and more efficient chips, such as those at 3nm or 5nm nodes, will have a strategic advantage, as these advanced semiconductors are powering emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, defence systems, and 6G telecom networks. Who are the top semiconductor firms? Taiwan’s TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) is the undisputed world leader, making over 60 percent of the world’s chips and nearly 90 percent of advanced chips. South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix are strong in memory chips and advanced fabrication. While the US excels in chip design with firms like Intel, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm, the manufacturing of many of these chips is not happening in the country. China’s SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation) continues to develop despite US sanctions, though it lags in advanced chip production. Japan’s Renesas Electronics and Toshiba are important contributors, especially in automotive and industrial sectors. From design to assembly, these countries and corporations control crucial stages of the semiconductor supply chain. Also read: Semicon India: CG Power, ABB India - which semiconductor stock prices saw an upsurge Why India’s Semicon India 2025 is a defining moment in the global chip race This is the context in which India’s Semicon India 2025, being held from September 2 to 4 at Yashobhoomi in New Delhi, assumes significance. The event aims to catapult India to a global hub for both chip design and manufacturing. With more than 20,750 participants, including 2,500 delegates from 48 countries in attendance, it is more than just another science show. How the world is eager to have India join the chip race is evident from 150 speakers and more than 350 exhibitors. Global CEOs, researchers, and policymakers are discussing topics such as smart manufacturing, advanced packaging, research and development, and investment opportunities. https://www.wionews.com/videos/pm-modi-in-japan-india-eyes-ai-semiconductors-quantum-tech-with-japan-1756461532526/embed What you should know about India's semiconductor mission The South Asian nation's chip journey is driven by the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM). Launched in 2021, ISM is supported by a ₹76,000 crore ($9.1 billion) Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. So far, nearly ₹65,000 crore has been committed to 10 approved projects across six states – Gujarat, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh. Five semiconductor units are already under construction, and two are expected to begin chip production soon. Prime Minister Modi, during his address, described India as a “lighthouse of stability and growth” amid global policy uncertainties. India’s goal is to capture 5 percent of the global semiconductor market by 2030, when the domestic chip market is expected to be valued at $100–110 billion. But India has a long way to go in the semiconductor industry It has to be noted that the Vikram chip may not compete with Taiwan’s 3nm chips – it is built using 28 to 90nm nodes. But it is strategically designed for high-volume applications such as power management, automotive controllers, and IoT devices, which have significant economic and strategic value. While initiatives under ISM can help India survive global headwinds, tech embargoes, and economic warfare, India has a long way to go in the chip race. Over the past decade, India’s electronics production has increased six times, and electronics exports grew eight-fold, yet challenges remain. India needs capabilities to produce advanced semiconductors like the 3nm chips. The manufacturing ecosystem needs to grow, and needs more sustained investment, a skilled workforce, and robust infrastructure. India's biggest advantages are the large consumer market and proven engineering capabilities. The global semiconductor industry is set to be worth $1 trillion by 2030. The Vikram chip is a pivotal moment for India's advances in the sector, and the beginning of its transition from a consumer of semiconductors to a producer.

<p>India's Vikram chip, unveiled at Semicon India 2025, is a pivotal moment for the nation. It is not only a step toward tech self-reliance but also marks the start of India as an emerging chip producer. Here is why you should take note</p>

Vikram chip at Semicon India 2025: India fired its first shot in global 'chip wars'. Here is why it's not just another science story

<p>President Donald Trump has claimed that US trade with India is "almost nil", painting a bleak picture of the trade deficit with India as evidence of an unfair imbalance. However, as repeatedly shown by data from official US sources, this claim is misleading and ignores the broader reality of America’s trade gaps with other countries. The US runs significant trade deficits with many nations, and India ranks only around tenth on that list—nowhere near the top five.</p><h2>What exactly did Trump say about India trade?</h2><p>In a Truth Social post on Monday (Sep 1), Trump claimed: “Our Trade Deficit with India is massive, and yet India does practically NOTHING for us. Our trade relationship is almost NIL — they sell to us, we get nothing. America is being ripped off. We will bring jobs and manufacturing back home where it belongs!”</p><p>This is nothing new: India-bashing over trade has been a Trump passtime for months now. Yet, it is time to call out the half-truths.</p><h2>The US trade reality: A whopping trillion-dollar deficit</h2><p>According to 2024 data, the US recorded a record 1.2 trillion dollar goods trade deficit. This staggering figure reflects the country’s deep reliance on foreign supply chains—especially in electronics, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and energy. But India is not one of the main contributors to this imbalance.</p><h2>China leads the pack, with many 'friendly' countries also contributing to the US trade deficit</h2><p>In 2024, the US trade deficit with China was 295 billion dollars, significantly down from its peak of 418 billion dollars in 2018. Despite geopolitical rivalries, the US imported nearly 500 billion dollars worth of goods from China in 2024, primarily electronics, furniture, and industrial equipment. In fact, nearly 70 per cent of all smartphones and laptops sold in the US were manufactured in China.</p><p>Mexico, America’s largest overall trade partner, came second, with a 172 billion dollar deficit. US imports from Mexico reached 470 billion dollars, including cars, trucks, computers, appliances, food, and beer. Most of this trade flows duty-free under the USMCA agreement.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed</a></p><h2>Who are the top 10 countries contributing to the US trade deficit?</h2><p>The top countries include both allies and competitors. Vietnam ranks third (124 billion dollar deficit), followed by Ireland (87 billion dollars) and Germany (85 billion dollars). Further down the list are Taiwan (74 billion), Japan (69 billion), South Korea (66 billion), and Canada (63 billion).</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-and-south-korea-would-have-had-nuclear-war-in-2016-but-didn-t-because-1756148882798"><strong>North and South Korea would have had nuclear war in 2016, but didn't because...</strong></a></p><h2>India ranks 10th in trade deficit with the US</h2><p>In 2024, the US trade deficit with India stood at 46 billion dollars. The US exported 41.8 billion dollars to India while importing 87.4 billion dollars. While Trump has criticised this imbalance, both countries had previously agreed to increase bilateral trade to 500 billion dollars by 2030.</p><p>Notably, US–India trade in services was approximately 83.4 billion dollars in 2024, helping to offset the goods deficit. Additionally, defence trade between the two nations has grown significantly—from virtually nil in 2000 to nearly 22 billion dollars in 2024.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/internet-refuses-to-believe-trump-is-dead-trend-was-fake-floats-body-double-theory-citing-ear-mark-hand-bruise-1756608896664"><strong>Internet refuses to believe 'Trump is dead' trend was fake, floats 'body-double' theory citing ear mark, hand bruise</strong></a></p><h2>The US runs trade deficits with over 100 countries—so why target India?</h2><p>Official data shows the US had goods trade deficits with more than 100 countries in 2024. The combined deficit with just five Asian countries—China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam (excluding India)—surpassed 620 billion dollars. Clearly, India is far from being a leading contributor to the US trade deficit.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/did-the-simpsons-predict-us-president-s-death-in-2025-clip-resurfaces-amid-trump-is-dead-trend-donald-trump-news-1756547362127"><strong>Did The Simpsons predict US president's death in 2025? Clip resurfaces amid 'Trump is dead' trend</strong></a></p><h2>‘Why this whining?’: Former Indian diplomat calls out Trump’s selective memory</h2><p>Responding to Trump’s post, former Indian diplomat Kanwal Sibal criticised the portrayal of India as a major trade offender. He described the claim as being "economical with truth and trading in falsities".</p><p>Sibal pointed out that US trade deficits with China (270 billion dollars), the European Union (161 billion), Mexico (157 billion), and Vietnam (113 billion) were all significantly higher than with India (41.5 billion). He also highlighted strong growth in services and defence trade, directly contradicting Trump’s suggestion of negligible engagement.</p><p>"Why this whining? The claim that we have offered to reduce our tariffs to nothing is true of some products, but our red lines are firm," Sibal added.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Trump has claimed that the US-India trade is “almost nil” and highlighted the trade gap with the South Asian nation. But much of US official data shows India ranks 10th in US trade deficits, far behind China and ‘friendly’ Asian trade partners. Overall. The US runs a $1.2 trillion deficit

President Donald Trump has claimed that US trade with India is "almost nil", painting a bleak picture of the trade deficit with India as evidence of an unfair imbalance. However, as repeatedly shown by data from official US sources, this claim is misleading and ignores the broader reality of America’s trade gaps with other countries. The US runs significant trade deficits with many nations, and India ranks only around tenth on that list—nowhere near the top five. What exactly did Trump say about India trade? In a Truth Social post on Monday (Sep 1), Trump claimed: “Our Trade Deficit with India is massive, and yet India does practically NOTHING for us. Our trade relationship is almost NIL — they sell to us, we get nothing. America is being ripped off. We will bring jobs and manufacturing back home where it belongs!” This is nothing new: India-bashing over trade has been a Trump passtime for months now. Yet, it is time to call out the half-truths. The US trade reality: A whopping trillion-dollar deficit According to 2024 data, the US recorded a record 1.2 trillion dollar goods trade deficit. This staggering figure reflects the country’s deep reliance on foreign supply chains—especially in electronics, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and energy. But India is not one of the main contributors to this imbalance. China leads the pack, with many 'friendly' countries also contributing to the US trade deficit In 2024, the US trade deficit with China was 295 billion dollars, significantly down from its peak of 418 billion dollars in 2018. Despite geopolitical rivalries, the US imported nearly 500 billion dollars worth of goods from China in 2024, primarily electronics, furniture, and industrial equipment. In fact, nearly 70 per cent of all smartphones and laptops sold in the US were manufactured in China. Mexico, America’s largest overall trade partner, came second, with a 172 billion dollar deficit. US imports from Mexico reached 470 billion dollars, including cars, trucks, computers, appliances, food, and beer. Most of this trade flows duty-free under the USMCA agreement. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed Who are the top 10 countries contributing to the US trade deficit? The top countries include both allies and competitors. Vietnam ranks third (124 billion dollar deficit), followed by Ireland (87 billion dollars) and Germany (85 billion dollars). Further down the list are Taiwan (74 billion), Japan (69 billion), South Korea (66 billion), and Canada (63 billion). Also read: North and South Korea would have had nuclear war in 2016, but didn't because... India ranks 10th in trade deficit with the US In 2024, the US trade deficit with India stood at 46 billion dollars. The US exported 41.8 billion dollars to India while importing 87.4 billion dollars. While Trump has criticised this imbalance, both countries had previously agreed to increase bilateral trade to 500 billion dollars by 2030. Notably, US–India trade in services was approximately 83.4 billion dollars in 2024, helping to offset the goods deficit. Additionally, defence trade between the two nations has grown significantly—from virtually nil in 2000 to nearly 22 billion dollars in 2024. Also read: Internet refuses to believe 'Trump is dead' trend was fake, floats 'body-double' theory citing ear mark, hand bruise The US runs trade deficits with over 100 countries—so why target India? Official data shows the US had goods trade deficits with more than 100 countries in 2024. The combined deficit with just five Asian countries—China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam (excluding India)—surpassed 620 billion dollars. Clearly, India is far from being a leading contributor to the US trade deficit. Also read: Did The Simpsons predict US president's death in 2025? Clip resurfaces amid 'Trump is dead' trend ‘Why this whining?’: Former Indian diplomat calls out Trump’s selective memory Responding to Trump’s post, former Indian diplomat Kanwal Sibal criticised the portrayal of India as a major trade offender. He described the claim as being "economical with truth and trading in falsities". Sibal pointed out that US trade deficits with China (270 billion dollars), the European Union (161 billion), Mexico (157 billion), and Vietnam (113 billion) were all significantly higher than with India (41.5 billion). He also highlighted strong growth in services and defence trade, directly contradicting Trump’s suggestion of negligible engagement. "Why this whining? The claim that we have offered to reduce our tariffs to nothing is true of some products, but our red lines are firm," Sibal added.

<p>Trump has claimed that the US-India trade is “almost nil” and highlighted the trade gap with the South Asian nation. But much of US official data shows India ranks 10th in US trade deficits, far behind China and ‘friendly’ Asian trade partners. Overall, the US runs a $1.2 trillion deficit</p>

Trump is WRONG on India trade, and hiding the truth that it's 10th in the list of countries the US is in deficit with: 'Why this whining?'

<p>Generation Z, born into the internet age in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are widely known to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) — from content creation to workplace automation. But new, unsettling research suggests that the generation leading AI adoption is also its biggest casualty in the workforce. The reason? Entry-level jobs traditionally filled by young workers are rapidly being replaced by AI systems.</p><h2>Studies show how Gen Z is disproportionately affected by AI adoption</h2><p>Recent studies by Stanford University and Deloitte suggest that AI may be transitioning from assistant to replacement — particularly for Generation Z roles.</p><p>Gen Z, typically defined as those born between 1997 and 2012, are true digital natives. Growing up surrounded by smartphones, social media, and constantly evolving technology has made them early adopters of AI tools.</p><p>Deloitte’s Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that approximately 25 per cent of Gen Z workers who use AI at work do so “all or most of the time.” Many believe AI can increase productivity and improve work–life balance.</p><p>A 2025 report from Master of Code Global found that 70 per cent of Gen Z actively use generative AI tools, often daily. These are used for tasks such as writing, coding, design, and problem-solving.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/ai-therapy-explained-can-chatbots-help-with-mental-health-1756709730837"><strong>AI therapy explained: Can chatbots help with mental health?</strong></a><br>Trust in AI is also high among Gen Z. A Forbes survey revealed that 41 per cent of Gen Z believe in AI more than human colleagues, and around 50 per cent feel more comfortable discussing workplace matters with AI than with their managers. On average, Gen Z interact with AI around 12 times per week — nearly double that of Generation X (7 times) and triple that of Baby Boomers (4 times).</p><h2>AI is reducing Gen Z job opportunities — and it’s a growing concern</h2><p>But while Gen Z may be leading the charge in AI adoption, they are also facing disproportionate job losses due to automation.</p><p>A 2025 study by Stanford University’s Digital Economy Lab, led by Erik Brynjolfsson and colleagues, analysed payroll data from ADP and found that employment among workers aged 22 to 25 in AI-exposed fields — such as software development, customer service, and clerical work — declined by 13 per cent between late 2022 and mid-2025.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/artificial-intelligence-a-teacher-s-enemy-or-best-friend-1756371574726/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/artificial-intelligence-a-teacher-s-enemy-or-best-friend-1756371574726/embed</a></p><p>In contrast, older workers in the same fields saw stable or even increasing employment rates.</p><p>The report attributes this generational divide to the nature of tasks involved. Entry-level roles often involve “codified knowledge” — structured, repeatable tasks that are easily automated by AI. Meanwhile, older workers possess “tacit knowledge” — experience-based skills and intuition that are harder to automate.</p><p>As Brynjolfsson put it, the challenge ahead is ensuring that AI serves as a tool for empowerment, not exclusion — especially for those just starting out in the workforce.</p><p>The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 reinforced these findings, warning that 40 per cent of employers expect to reduce staff in roles where AI can automate routine tasks. <strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/personalised-learning-with-ai-how-classrooms-are-evolving-explained-1756657872678"><strong>Personalised learning with AI: How classrooms are evolving explained</strong></a></p><h2>Entry-level positions — often held by Gen Z — are particularly at risk. Is it time to pivot?</h2><p>Concerns are spreading globally. A 2024 survey conducted in India by BML Munjal University found that 44 per cent of Gen Z respondents fear job displacement due to AI, while 63 per cent worry about long-term job instability.</p><p>In response to these challenges, many Gen Z workers are reassessing their career options. A report by Business Insider highlighted a growing shift among younger workers towards blue-collar and skilled trades such as electrical work, plumbing, and landscaping that are less susceptible to automation.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/future-of-healthcare-how-artificial-intelligence-is-transforming-hospitals-1756656911576"><strong>Future of healthcare: How artificial intelligence is transforming hospitals</strong></a></p><p>Experts argue that systemic changes are needed. Strategic policy interventions — such as updated curricula focusing on AI collaboration, digital resilience, and soft skills — are essential. Hiring practices must also adapt to ensure entry-level roles remain viable pathways into long-term careers.</p><p>Without these changes, Gen Z faces the risk of becoming a “lost generation” in the workforce. The erosion of entry-level opportunities could lead to lasting effects on economic mobility and social equity.</p><h2>What's the way forward for Gen Z workers threatened by AI automation?</h2><p>AI is undoubtedly transforming the world of work, but without deliberate efforts to guide this transformation, it risks deepening generational inequalities. While Gen Z may be the most AI-literate generation yet, they also stand to lose the most from unregulated AI-driven disruption.</p><p>As Brynjolfsson warns, the future depends on balancing AI innovation with policies that protect and prepare young workers for a fast-evolving, tech-enabled job environment.</p>

Generation Z leads AI adoption at the workplace but faces significant job losses as entry-level roles are automated. Studies show decline in young workers in AI-exposed jobs. What's the way out for this vulnerable generation?

Generation Z, born into the internet age in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are widely known to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) — from content creation to workplace automation. But new, unsettling research suggests that the generation leading AI adoption is also its biggest casualty in the workforce. The reason? Entry-level jobs traditionally filled by young workers are rapidly being replaced by AI systems. Studies show how Gen Z is disproportionately affected by AI adoption Recent studies by Stanford University and Deloitte suggest that AI may be transitioning from assistant to replacement — particularly for Generation Z roles. Gen Z, typically defined as those born between 1997 and 2012, are true digital natives. Growing up surrounded by smartphones, social media, and constantly evolving technology has made them early adopters of AI tools. Deloitte’s Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that approximately 25 per cent of Gen Z workers who use AI at work do so “all or most of the time.” Many believe AI can increase productivity and improve work–life balance. A 2025 report from Master of Code Global found that 70 per cent of Gen Z actively use generative AI tools, often daily. These are used for tasks such as writing, coding, design, and problem-solving. Also read: AI therapy explained: Can chatbots help with mental health? Trust in AI is also high among Gen Z. A Forbes survey revealed that 41 per cent of Gen Z believe in AI more than human colleagues, and around 50 per cent feel more comfortable discussing workplace matters with AI than with their managers. On average, Gen Z interact with AI around 12 times per week — nearly double that of Generation X (7 times) and triple that of Baby Boomers (4 times). AI is reducing Gen Z job opportunities — and it’s a growing concern But while Gen Z may be leading the charge in AI adoption, they are also facing disproportionate job losses due to automation. A 2025 study by Stanford University’s Digital Economy Lab, led by Erik Brynjolfsson and colleagues, analysed payroll data from ADP and found that employment among workers aged 22 to 25 in AI-exposed fields — such as software development, customer service, and clerical work — declined by 13 per cent between late 2022 and mid-2025. https://www.wionews.com/videos/artificial-intelligence-a-teacher-s-enemy-or-best-friend-1756371574726/embed In contrast, older workers in the same fields saw stable or even increasing employment rates. The report attributes this generational divide to the nature of tasks involved. Entry-level roles often involve “codified knowledge” — structured, repeatable tasks that are easily automated by AI. Meanwhile, older workers possess “tacit knowledge” — experience-based skills and intuition that are harder to automate. As Brynjolfsson put it, the challenge ahead is ensuring that AI serves as a tool for empowerment, not exclusion — especially for those just starting out in the workforce. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 reinforced these findings, warning that 40 per cent of employers expect to reduce staff in roles where AI can automate routine tasks. Also read: Personalised learning with AI: How classrooms are evolving explained Entry-level positions — often held by Gen Z — are particularly at risk. Is it time to pivot? Concerns are spreading globally. A 2024 survey conducted in India by BML Munjal University found that 44 per cent of Gen Z respondents fear job displacement due to AI, while 63 per cent worry about long-term job instability. In response to these challenges, many Gen Z workers are reassessing their career options. A report by Business Insider highlighted a growing shift among younger workers towards blue-collar and skilled trades such as electrical work, plumbing, and landscaping that are less susceptible to automation. Also read: Future of healthcare: How artificial intelligence is transforming hospitals Experts argue that systemic changes are needed. Strategic policy interventions — such as updated curricula focusing on AI collaboration, digital resilience, and soft skills — are essential. Hiring practices must also adapt to ensure entry-level roles remain viable pathways into long-term careers. Without these changes, Gen Z faces the risk of becoming a “lost generation” in the workforce. The erosion of entry-level opportunities could lead to lasting effects on economic mobility and social equity. What's the way forward for Gen Z workers threatened by AI automation? AI is undoubtedly transforming the world of work, but without deliberate efforts to guide this transformation, it risks deepening generational inequalities. While Gen Z may be the most AI-literate generation yet, they also stand to lose the most from unregulated AI-driven disruption. As Brynjolfsson warns, the future depends on balancing AI innovation with policies that protect and prepare young workers for a fast-evolving, tech-enabled job environment.

<p>Generation Z leads AI adoption at the workplace but faces significant job losses as entry-level roles are automated. Studies show decline in young workers in AI-exposed jobs. What's the way out for this vulnerable generation?</p>

Gen Z uses AI the most, but it's eating up their jobs. Disturbing trend of AI turning from assistant to replacement of young workers

<p>The timing was not lost on anyone as the US embassy shared a post on X about ties with India “touching new heights”. It was posted at the exact time Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was holding a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit on Monday (Sep 1). Coming as it did amid US President Donald Trump's punishment of India for buying Russian oil — which his tariff tsar, Peter Navarro, claimed was fuelling Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine — netizens were quick to react.</p><h2>What did the US embassy post say, even as the ambassador is yet to take charge?</h2><p>Even as the post of US ambassador to India is vacant as the nominee is yet to take chage— and reportedly set to also be a regional envoy for South and Central Asia — the embassy's social media post has raised eyebrows. It could be a stern warning, or a desperate attempt to salvage ties.</p><p>The post read: “The partnership between the United States and India continues to reach new heights — a defining relationship of the 21st century. This month, we’re spotlighting the people, progress, and possibilities driving us forward. From innovation and entrepreneurship to defence and bilateral ties, it’s the enduring friendship between our two peoples that fuels this journey. Follow the hashtag and be a part of #USIndiaFWDforOurPeople.”</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-at-sco-summit-says-india-bearing-brunt-of-terrorism-for-last-four-decades-thanks-countries-that-stood-by-us-during-pahalgam-terror-attack-1756700589722"><strong>PM Modi at SCO Summit says India 'bearing brunt of terrorism for last four decades,' thanks countries that 'stood by us' during Pahalgam terror attack</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It embedded a quote of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said: "The enduring friendship between our two peoples is the bedrock of our cooperation nand propels us forward as we realize the tremendous potential of our economic relationship".</p><p>Interestingly, the X handle of the US ambassador to India has a description that says: “This account will remain dormant until the new U.S. Ambassador to India arrives.” Note that the post of the envoy has been vacant for months now, before Trump appointed Sergio Gor to the post in late August. He is yet to take charge.</p><h2>The US embassy hashtag challenge isn't impressing many</h2><p>In a surprising twist, Rubio even promoted the hashtag #USIndiaFWDforOurPeople, adding another layer of ambiguity to the American messaging. But the US Embassy's attempt to rally support via the hashtag may have come too little, too late.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-pm-modi-addresses-terrorism-mentions-pahalgam-attack-in-front-of-pakistan-pm-1756709048541/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-pm-modi-addresses-terrorism-mentions-pahalgam-attack-in-front-of-pakistan-pm-1756709048541/embed</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One X user wrote: “Your actions and words don’t match. Tell Navarro to stop being racist.”*</p><p>The user was possibly referring to Peter Navarro’s controversial remarks that “Brahmins” were profiteering from the India–Russia oil trade — a statement widely condemned as racially insensitive.</p><p>Another X user posted (translated via machine translation): “Suddenly, the time has changed, the sentiments have changed.”</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sco-summit-pm-modi-slams-certain-nations-backing-terrorism-as-pakistan-watches-on-1756701048715"><strong>Also read: SCO summit: PM Modi slams 'certain nations' backing terrorism as Pakistan's Shehbaz Sharif watches on</strong></a></p><h2>SCO Summit is making the US sit up and take notice of a changing world</h2><p>In the run-up to the SCO summit, there had been growing discussions about how groupings like SCO and BRICS could lead a move toward a de-dollarised, multipolar world— enabling trade and security cooperation outside the bounds of Western sanctions.</p><p>The Tianjin summit may be remembered as the moment this agenda gained serious traction.</p><p>Perhaps that’s why the US is suddenly seeking to repair ties — after a sharp downturn in the relationship caused by Trump’s tariff decision over India’s purchase of Russian oil, effectively undoing decades of strategic partnership in a matter of days.<br>&nbsp;</p>

It's no coincidence: The US embassy’s post on India-US ties came amid Modi’s SCO meeting with Putin and US sanctions on India’s Russian oil purchases. Navarro’s racist remarks sparked backlash, while the SCO summit signals growing India-Russia-China cooperation. Time for US to mend ways?

The timing was not lost on anyone as the US embassy shared a post on X about ties with India “touching new heights”. It was posted at the exact time Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was holding a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit on Monday (Sep 1). Coming as it did amid US President Donald Trump's punishment of India for buying Russian oil — which his tariff tsar, Peter Navarro, claimed was fuelling Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine — netizens were quick to react. What did the US embassy post say, even as the ambassador is yet to take charge? Even as the post of US ambassador to India is vacant as the nominee is yet to take chage— and reportedly set to also be a regional envoy for South and Central Asia — the embassy's social media post has raised eyebrows. It could be a stern warning, or a desperate attempt to salvage ties. The post read: “The partnership between the United States and India continues to reach new heights — a defining relationship of the 21st century. This month, we’re spotlighting the people, progress, and possibilities driving us forward. From innovation and entrepreneurship to defence and bilateral ties, it’s the enduring friendship between our two peoples that fuels this journey. Follow the hashtag and be a part of #USIndiaFWDforOurPeople.” Also read: PM Modi at SCO Summit says India 'bearing brunt of terrorism for last four decades,' thanks countries that 'stood by us' during Pahalgam terror attack It embedded a quote of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said: "The enduring friendship between our two peoples is the bedrock of our cooperation nand propels us forward as we realize the tremendous potential of our economic relationship". Interestingly, the X handle of the US ambassador to India has a description that says: “This account will remain dormant until the new U.S. Ambassador to India arrives.” Note that the post of the envoy has been vacant for months now, before Trump appointed Sergio Gor to the post in late August. He is yet to take charge. The US embassy hashtag challenge isn't impressing many In a surprising twist, Rubio even promoted the hashtag #USIndiaFWDforOurPeople, adding another layer of ambiguity to the American messaging. But the US Embassy's attempt to rally support via the hashtag may have come too little, too late. https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-pm-modi-addresses-terrorism-mentions-pahalgam-attack-in-front-of-pakistan-pm-1756709048541/embed One X user wrote: “Your actions and words don’t match. Tell Navarro to stop being racist.”* The user was possibly referring to Peter Navarro’s controversial remarks that “Brahmins” were profiteering from the India–Russia oil trade — a statement widely condemned as racially insensitive. Another X user posted (translated via machine translation): “Suddenly, the time has changed, the sentiments have changed.” Also read: SCO summit: PM Modi slams 'certain nations' backing terrorism as Pakistan's Shehbaz Sharif watches on SCO Summit is making the US sit up and take notice of a changing world In the run-up to the SCO summit, there had been growing discussions about how groupings like SCO and BRICS could lead a move toward a de-dollarised, multipolar world— enabling trade and security cooperation outside the bounds of Western sanctions. The Tianjin summit may be remembered as the moment this agenda gained serious traction. Perhaps that’s why the US is suddenly seeking to repair ties — after a sharp downturn in the relationship caused by Trump’s tariff decision over India’s purchase of Russian oil, effectively undoing decades of strategic partnership in a matter of days.

<p>It's no coincidence: The US embassy’s post on India-US ties came amid Modi’s SCO meeting with Putin and US sanctions on India’s Russian oil purchases. Navarro’s racist remarks sparked backlash, while the SCO summit signals growing India-Russia-China cooperation. Time for US to mend ways?</p>

'Tell Navarro to Stop Being Racist': US Embassy posts on India–US ties exactly as Modi, Putin meet at SCO – Desperate step or stern warning?

<p>India's clout on the global stage can be summed up in two car rides and body language of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Tianjin, China on Sunday and Monday (Sep 1). While the bonhomie of Modi with Russian President Vladimir Putin was evident in photos and videos, the newfound warmth between him and Chinese President Xi Jinping caught the interest of observers. Here is Modi at SCO as a story of car rides and close interactions.</p><h2>Modi got Xis' favoured car at SCO summit</h2><p>&nbsp;According to media reports, Xi provided Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a Hongqi L5 limousine for his official commute at Tianjin for the SCO summit. This is being seen as a diplomatic gesture, as Xi prefers the same model for his state visits. The Hongui L5 is also seen as a "Made in China" symbol. &nbsp; The car is part of the iconic "Red Flag" series that Xi used on several occasions, including his 2019 state visit to India. &nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-india-will-never-compromise-pm-narendra-modi-s-firm-response-after-trump-imposes-50-tariff-trade-war-india-us-trade-deal-1754542590867"><strong>'India will never compromise...': PM Modi's firm response after Trump imposes 50% tariff</strong></a></p><h2>Modi shared ride with Putin for bilateral meeting at SCO</h2><p>On Monday, Modi and Putin were photographed together on the passenger seat of the same car, as they proceeded for a bilateral meeting after the summit's main event. They were sitting in Putin's official Aurus Senat limousine.</p><p>This is in fact a repeat of a similar ride the two leaders shared in July 2024 during Modi's visit to Russia in a different electric vehicle at Putin's residence.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-xi-important-for-india-china-to-be-friends-good-neighbours-1756643327439/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-xi-important-for-india-china-to-be-friends-good-neighbours-1756643327439/embed</a></p><h2>Body language and bonhomie of Modi, Putin and Xi were unmissable at SCO summit</h2><p>The coming together of Modi, Putin and Xi came amid US President Donald Trump's tariff wars and punishment of India for buying Russian oil, which, according to the US, is fuelling the Ukraine war.&nbsp;<br><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-rules-out-trade-talks-after-pm-modi-s-india-would-not-compromise-statement-on-tariffs-what-this-means-1754614462056"><strong>Trump rules out trade talks after PM Modi's 'India would not compromise' statement on tariffs: What this means</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>From the photos and videos of the summit, their body language exuded bonhomie. Modi displayed notable warmth with both Xi and Putin, in a sign of strategic realignments amid global tensions.</p><p>Upon his arrival in Tianjin, Modi was welcomed with a ceremonial gesture, including a child presenting flowers, and Xi personally greeted him at the Great Hall of the People, the seat of the Chinese parliament. &nbsp;</p><p>Modi's use of the Hongqi L5 limousine is being seen as a sign of respect for a global leader.</p><p>In their bilateral discussions, Modi and Xi discussed stabilising the ties rocked by recent border tensions. Modi stressed peace and progress, while Xi highlighted that India and China are two great civilisations, while noting the importance of ‘the elephant and dragon dancing together.’' &nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also read:</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/did-modi-not-pick-up-four-calls-from-trump-german-newspaper-report-claims-1756198908072"><strong> Did Modi not pick up four calls from Trump? German newspaper makes this claim amid US tariff threat and Russia oil trade punishment</strong></a></p><h2>Modi's personal huddles with Putin at SCO</h2><p>At the summit as well as their one-on-one interactions, Modi’s rapport with Putin was visible, with one photo capturing the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif looking on, almost ignored, while the Indian PM and Russian leader were having an animated conversation. &nbsp;The two leaders discussed the deep bilateral ties, including trade and defence. Putin praised Modi for trying to resolve the Ukraine conflict, while Modi reaffirmed India’s role in fostering peace.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

At the SCO Summit in Tianjin, PM Modi’s warm gestures with Xi and Putin — from sharing Xi’s Hongqi L5 limousine to riding with Putin in his Aurus — highlighted India’s rising clout. Their close body language signaled strategic realignments amid Trump’s tariff war and global tensions. 


India's clout on the global stage can be summed up in two car rides and body language of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Tianjin, China on Sunday and Monday (Sep 1). While the bonhomie of Modi with Russian President Vladimir Putin was evident in photos and videos, the newfound warmth between him and Chinese President Xi Jinping caught the interest of observers. Here is Modi at SCO as a story of car rides and close interactions. Modi got Xis' favoured car at SCO summit According to media reports, Xi provided Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a Hongqi L5 limousine for his official commute at Tianjin for the SCO summit. This is being seen as a diplomatic gesture, as Xi prefers the same model for his state visits. The Hongui L5 is also seen as a "Made in China" symbol. The car is part of the iconic "Red Flag" series that Xi used on several occasions, including his 2019 state visit to India. Also read: 'India will never compromise...': PM Modi's firm response after Trump imposes 50% tariff Modi shared ride with Putin for bilateral meeting at SCO On Monday, Modi and Putin were photographed together on the passenger seat of the same car, as they proceeded for a bilateral meeting after the summit's main event. They were sitting in Putin's official Aurus Senat limousine. This is in fact a repeat of a similar ride the two leaders shared in July 2024 during Modi's visit to Russia in a different electric vehicle at Putin's residence. https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-2025-xi-important-for-india-china-to-be-friends-good-neighbours-1756643327439/embed Body language and bonhomie of Modi, Putin and Xi were unmissable at SCO summit The coming together of Modi, Putin and Xi came amid US President Donald Trump's tariff wars and punishment of India for buying Russian oil, which, according to the US, is fuelling the Ukraine war. Also read: Trump rules out trade talks after PM Modi's 'India would not compromise' statement on tariffs: What this means From the photos and videos of the summit, their body language exuded bonhomie. Modi displayed notable warmth with both Xi and Putin, in a sign of strategic realignments amid global tensions. Upon his arrival in Tianjin, Modi was welcomed with a ceremonial gesture, including a child presenting flowers, and Xi personally greeted him at the Great Hall of the People, the seat of the Chinese parliament. Modi's use of the Hongqi L5 limousine is being seen as a sign of respect for a global leader. In their bilateral discussions, Modi and Xi discussed stabilising the ties rocked by recent border tensions. Modi stressed peace and progress, while Xi highlighted that India and China are two great civilisations, while noting the importance of ‘the elephant and dragon dancing together.’' Also read: Did Modi not pick up four calls from Trump? German newspaper makes this claim amid US tariff threat and Russia oil trade punishment Modi's personal huddles with Putin at SCO At the summit as well as their one-on-one interactions, Modi’s rapport with Putin was visible, with one photo capturing the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif looking on, almost ignored, while the Indian PM and Russian leader were having an animated conversation. The two leaders discussed the deep bilateral ties, including trade and defence. Putin praised Modi for trying to resolve the Ukraine conflict, while Modi reaffirmed India’s role in fostering peace.

<p>At the SCO Summit, PM Modi’s warm gestures with Xi and Putin — from sharing Xi’s Hongqi L5 limousine to riding with Putin in his Aurus — highlighted India’s rising clout. Their body language signalled strategic realignments amid Trump’s tariff war. &nbsp;Why does it matter?<br>&nbsp;</p>

Modi at SCO summit in two car rides and body language bonhomie: Indian PM was given Xi's favourite ride, and had Putin by the side at Tianjin

<p><strong>SCO Summit: </strong>Can the regional members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) be part of a common Eurasian security area similar to NATO, and have a common banking region? That's a tantalising possibility discussed at the SCO summit underway in China's Tinjian city on Monday (Sep 1). &nbsp;The proposals were shared by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, and some of them were discussed in some form at the summit, which is being attended by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Belarus became a full member of SCO in 2024. Taking on from Lukashenko's six proposals, here is how SCO could reshape the world in the near future. SCO could amerge a platform of dialogue for countries affected by Western sanctions, tariff war, blockades and military actions, as they include everyone targeted by US President Donald Trump and the West: from Russia to Iran to India and China.</p><h2>How SCO could lead the way for NATO-like ‘Indivisible Security’ in Eurasia</h2><p>Lukashenko reiterated the idea of "Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century," with the SCO as the primary forum for its implementation. The idea of unified security framework for Eurasia stresses indivisible security where no nation's safety comes at the expense of another's. This includes addressing terrorism, cyber attacks, and regional conflicts, advocating for collective responses over unilateral actions, which sounds very similar to NATO. &nbsp;In Lukashenko's view, this could strengthen SCO's anti-terrorism mechanisms and promote stability across member states, which cover over 40 per cent of the world's population.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-day-2-pm-modi-raises-pahalgam-india-bearing-brunt-of-terrorism-for-4-decades-1756700967450/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-day-2-pm-modi-raises-pahalgam-india-bearing-brunt-of-terrorism-for-4-decades-1756700967450/embed</a></p><h2>A banking area of SCO member states?</h2><p>Creating an SCO Development Bank, as per Lukashenko's proposal, would finance infrastructure and development projects among Smember states, reducing reliance on Western financial institutions like the IMF or World Bank. This could help economic cooperation, given that the combined GDP in purchasing power parity of SCO members &nbsp;could reach $82 trillion in 2025. &nbsp;This aligns with broader SCO goals of de-dollarisation and could enhance trade resilience for economies like Belarus and Russia facing Western sanctions and tariffs, by facilitating loans in national currencies.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sco-summit-2025-how-many-indians-live-and-work-in-china-1756121268769"><strong>Also read: SCO Summit 2025: How many Indians live and work in China?</strong></a></p><h2>Towards an SCO-led security architecture</h2><p>SCO is envisioning a ‘Universal SCO Center for Countering Security Challenges and Threats’, and an ‘Anti-Drug Centre’. These centres can cooerdinate response to &nbsp;transnational issues like drug trafficking, extremism, and organised crime. They can build on existing SCO bodies like the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), making it a more proactive force in regional security. This becomes &nbsp;relevant amid rising drug flows from Afghanistan and cyber threats.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-gathering-of-solidarity-friendship-china-welcomes-pm-modi-for-sco-summit-visit-1754667257818"><strong>'Gathering of solidarity, friendship...': China welcomes PM Modi for SCO Summit visit</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>An independent financial mechanism for SCO&nbsp;</h2><p>As advocated by Lukashenko, an autonomous SCO financial system to fund cross-border initiatives could mitigate the impact of tariffs and sanctions, while financial settlements can be done in national currencies. This could support projects in logistics, energy, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence. This could offset external pressures like Trump tariffs, US and EU sanctions through alternative payment infrastructures. This could be done through expanding the SCO Interbank Association, promoting sustainable growth in a multipolar economy while reducing vulnerability to global financial volatility.</p><h2>Promoting trade between SCO member nations</h2><p>While analysing Lukashenko's proposals for trade promotion, it should be noted that SCO member states are some of the biggest purchasers and sellers of oil and natural gas. Annual trade among SCO nations already surpasses $2 trillion. As Lukashenko mentioned, it can be expanded through joint investment funds, digital economy development, and green technologies. Trade can expand beyond commodities, focusing on high-tech sectors to achieve long-term economic synergy. This could also faciliate energy deals between Russia, China and India, or tech collaborations involving India, countering trade barriers imposed by the US.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-india-to-resume-border-trade-amid-trump-s-tariff-war-here-s-what-we-know-1755158513544"><strong>China, India to resume border trade amid Trump's tariff war? Here's what we know</strong></a></p><h2>Expanding SCO to coalition of concerned states</h2><p>As indicated by Lukashenko, no other grouping currently has the membership of nations affected by Western sanctions as SCO. The Belarus leader supported admitting new members and partners who embody the "Shanghai Spirit" of mutual respect, trust, equality, dialogue, and common development. Such an expansion will improve the influence of SCO, particularly if Turkey and ASEAN nations are included as observers. This year's SCO summit is a harbinger of such expansion, having seen attendance by 30 leaders including non-members like Egypt's prime minister and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Expansion could enhance the SCO's geopolitical weight as a counterbalance to NATO or the G7. But there is risk that its cohesion could be diluted, if new entrants have conflicting interests. Already, there are tensions between India and Pakistan over cross-border terrorism, even as Islamabad is increasingly getting closer to Trump administration.</p><p>Can SCO members resolve their bilateral conflicts and work towards common security and economic goals? If that happens, it could change world history.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

SCO Summit: Thinking of Eurasia as a common security area and banking region could change the military and economic dynamics of the entire regional nations who are members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Belarus President Lukashenko's proposals point to this direction

SCO Summit: Can the regional members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) be part of a common Eurasian security area similar to NATO, and have a common banking region? That's a tantalising possibility discussed at the SCO summit underway in China's Tinjian city on Monday (Sep 1). The proposals were shared by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, and some of them were discussed in some form at the summit, which is being attended by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Belarus became a full member of SCO in 2024. Taking on from Lukashenko's six proposals, here is how SCO could reshape the world in the near future. SCO could amerge a platform of dialogue for countries affected by Western sanctions, tariff war, blockades and military actions, as they include everyone targeted by US President Donald Trump and the West: from Russia to Iran to India and China. How SCO could lead the way for NATO-like ‘Indivisible Security’ in Eurasia Lukashenko reiterated the idea of "Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century," with the SCO as the primary forum for its implementation. The idea of unified security framework for Eurasia stresses indivisible security where no nation's safety comes at the expense of another's. This includes addressing terrorism, cyber attacks, and regional conflicts, advocating for collective responses over unilateral actions, which sounds very similar to NATO. In Lukashenko's view, this could strengthen SCO's anti-terrorism mechanisms and promote stability across member states, which cover over 40 per cent of the world's population. https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-summit-day-2-pm-modi-raises-pahalgam-india-bearing-brunt-of-terrorism-for-4-decades-1756700967450/embed A banking area of SCO member states? Creating an SCO Development Bank, as per Lukashenko's proposal, would finance infrastructure and development projects among Smember states, reducing reliance on Western financial institutions like the IMF or World Bank. This could help economic cooperation, given that the combined GDP in purchasing power parity of SCO members could reach $82 trillion in 2025. This aligns with broader SCO goals of de-dollarisation and could enhance trade resilience for economies like Belarus and Russia facing Western sanctions and tariffs, by facilitating loans in national currencies. Also read: SCO Summit 2025: How many Indians live and work in China? Towards an SCO-led security architecture SCO is envisioning a ‘Universal SCO Center for Countering Security Challenges and Threats’, and an ‘Anti-Drug Centre’. These centres can cooerdinate response to transnational issues like drug trafficking, extremism, and organised crime. They can build on existing SCO bodies like the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), making it a more proactive force in regional security. This becomes relevant amid rising drug flows from Afghanistan and cyber threats. Also read: 'Gathering of solidarity, friendship...': China welcomes PM Modi for SCO Summit visit An independent financial mechanism for SCO As advocated by Lukashenko, an autonomous SCO financial system to fund cross-border initiatives could mitigate the impact of tariffs and sanctions, while financial settlements can be done in national currencies. This could support projects in logistics, energy, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence. This could offset external pressures like Trump tariffs, US and EU sanctions through alternative payment infrastructures. This could be done through expanding the SCO Interbank Association, promoting sustainable growth in a multipolar economy while reducing vulnerability to global financial volatility. Promoting trade between SCO member nations While analysing Lukashenko's proposals for trade promotion, it should be noted that SCO member states are some of the biggest purchasers and sellers of oil and natural gas. Annual trade among SCO nations already surpasses $2 trillion. As Lukashenko mentioned, it can be expanded through joint investment funds, digital economy development, and green technologies. Trade can expand beyond commodities, focusing on high-tech sectors to achieve long-term economic synergy. This could also faciliate energy deals between Russia, China and India, or tech collaborations involving India, countering trade barriers imposed by the US. Also read: China, India to resume border trade amid Trump's tariff war? Here's what we know Expanding SCO to coalition of concerned states As indicated by Lukashenko, no other grouping currently has the membership of nations affected by Western sanctions as SCO. The Belarus leader supported admitting new members and partners who embody the "Shanghai Spirit" of mutual respect, trust, equality, dialogue, and common development. Such an expansion will improve the influence of SCO, particularly if Turkey and ASEAN nations are included as observers. This year's SCO summit is a harbinger of such expansion, having seen attendance by 30 leaders including non-members like Egypt's prime minister and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Expansion could enhance the SCO's geopolitical weight as a counterbalance to NATO or the G7. But there is risk that its cohesion could be diluted, if new entrants have conflicting interests. Already, there are tensions between India and Pakistan over cross-border terrorism, even as Islamabad is increasingly getting closer to Trump administration. Can SCO members resolve their bilateral conflicts and work towards common security and economic goals? If that happens, it could change world history.

<p>SCO Summit: Thinking of Eurasia as a common security area and banking region could change the military and economic dynamics of the entire regional nations who are members of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Belarus President Lukashenko's proposals point to this direction</p>

SCO Summit: Eurasia as a NATO-like security area and banking region to counter US, West? Why these proposals can change the world

<p>The US mainstream media, most of which Donald Trump calls ‘fake news’, as well as several policy-watching think tanks, have criticised the American president's move to punish India with 50 per cent tariffs over the purchase of Russian oil. Only Trump-aligned media appear to be accepting it as a wise decision. Here is a breakdown:</p><h2>Criticism of Trump tariffs against India from media, thinktanks and experts</h2><p>The Wall Street Journal editorial board, often supportive of free-market conservatism, has taken a critical stance, with commentators arguing that the tariffs are disproportionate and unnecessarily antagonistic towards a key democratic ally. They noted that while India-Russia ties could be a problem for the US, Trump’s approach would do more harm than good. The Journal questioned why a nation seen as being close to the US, particularly given the bonhomie between Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi, is now facing such punitive treatment.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/amid-trump-tariff-pressure-india-looks-to-diversify-textile-exports-to-40-nations-1756296523632"><strong>Amid Trump tariff pressure, India looks to diversify textile exports to 40 nations</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described the move as ‘dismantling decades of bipartisan progress’ in strengthening US-India relations. They suggested the tariff policy will be perceived in New Delhi as ‘heavy-handed interference’ in Indian sovereignty, particularly given India’s strategic reliance on Russian oil. Carnegie warned that this shift from engagement to economic punishment could unravel trust between two democracies once seen as natural partners in counterbalancing China’s rise.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/think-tank-gtri-asks-centre-to-boost-consumption-to-offset-donald-trump-s-tariff-1756299239761"><strong>Think tank GTRI asks Centre to boost consumption to offset&nbsp;Donald Trump's tariff</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Opinions and experts quoted in The Guardian challenged the framing of tariffs as legitimate diplomatic tools. Dr Stuart Rollo, for instance, characterised the measures as a 'departure from traditional diplomacy', calling them instruments of 'geopolitical compulsion'. Economist Devashish Mitra pointed out that India’s regional importance as a counterweight to China appears to have been undervalued, suggesting the administration is sacrificing strategic stability for short-term pressure tactics.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/here-s-what-india-can-do-to-counter-donald-trump-s-tariffs-1756284737233"><strong>Here's what India can do to counter Donald Trump's tariffs</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Even opinion pieces in the New York Post, typically sympathetic to Trump, flagged concerns. While acknowledging India’s increased economic alignment with Russia, some writers there questioned whether tariffs are an appropriate vehicle for foreign policy enforcement. They warned that the move exposes fissures in the US–India relationship, which may not recover easily.</p><h2>But conservative media defends Trump tariffs as ‘realpolitik’</h2><p>In contrast, right-leaning media outlets aligned with Trump framed the tariffs as a logical extension of his “America First” agenda and a necessary recalibration of foreign policy. Fox News featured several columns positioning the tariffs as ‘tactical leverage’, not random economic aggression. Policy analyst Tanvi Ratna described the action as a ‘bold and ambitious realignment’, arguing that it is intended to force India to reassess its economic ties with Russia.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-lash-out-at-trump-for-india-tariffs-why-is-china-spared-1756376042775/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-lash-out-at-trump-for-india-tariffs-why-is-china-spared-1756376042775/embed</a></p><p>The goal, in this view, is not to punish, but to negotiate from a position of strength.</p><p>Some Fox News voices compared the strategy to ‘defensive warfare’, portraying tariffs as tools of reciprocity. They argued that if India penalises American exporters indirectly through strategic partnerships with adversaries like Russia, then the US is justified in returning the favour.</p><h2>Can tariffs be a foreign policy tool?</h2><p>Much of the debate centres on whether tariffs can be instruments of foreign policy at all.</p><p>On one side are those who believe in global cooperation, mutual economic benefit, and soft-power influence; while on the other, there are voice that favour transactional relationships and pressure-based negotiation.</p>

Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on India over Russian oil purchase have drawn sharp criticism from much of US media, warning of damage to US-India relations. But pro-Trump voices insist it's a bold leverage to counter Russia and enforce “America First” policies

The US mainstream media, most of which Donald Trump calls ‘fake news’, as well as several policy-watching think tanks, have criticised the American president's move to punish India with 50 per cent tariffs over the purchase of Russian oil. Only Trump-aligned media appear to be accepting it as a wise decision. Here is a breakdown: Criticism of Trump tariffs against India from media, thinktanks and experts The Wall Street Journal editorial board, often supportive of free-market conservatism, has taken a critical stance, with commentators arguing that the tariffs are disproportionate and unnecessarily antagonistic towards a key democratic ally. They noted that while India-Russia ties could be a problem for the US, Trump’s approach would do more harm than good. The Journal questioned why a nation seen as being close to the US, particularly given the bonhomie between Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi, is now facing such punitive treatment. Also read: Amid Trump tariff pressure, India looks to diversify textile exports to 40 nations Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described the move as ‘dismantling decades of bipartisan progress’ in strengthening US-India relations. They suggested the tariff policy will be perceived in New Delhi as ‘heavy-handed interference’ in Indian sovereignty, particularly given India’s strategic reliance on Russian oil. Carnegie warned that this shift from engagement to economic punishment could unravel trust between two democracies once seen as natural partners in counterbalancing China’s rise. Also read: Think tank GTRI asks Centre to boost consumption to offset Donald Trump's tariff Opinions and experts quoted in The Guardian challenged the framing of tariffs as legitimate diplomatic tools. Dr Stuart Rollo, for instance, characterised the measures as a 'departure from traditional diplomacy', calling them instruments of 'geopolitical compulsion'. Economist Devashish Mitra pointed out that India’s regional importance as a counterweight to China appears to have been undervalued, suggesting the administration is sacrificing strategic stability for short-term pressure tactics. Also read: Here's what India can do to counter Donald Trump's tariffs Even opinion pieces in the New York Post, typically sympathetic to Trump, flagged concerns. While acknowledging India’s increased economic alignment with Russia, some writers there questioned whether tariffs are an appropriate vehicle for foreign policy enforcement. They warned that the move exposes fissures in the US–India relationship, which may not recover easily. But conservative media defends Trump tariffs as ‘realpolitik’ In contrast, right-leaning media outlets aligned with Trump framed the tariffs as a logical extension of his “America First” agenda and a necessary recalibration of foreign policy. Fox News featured several columns positioning the tariffs as ‘tactical leverage’, not random economic aggression. Policy analyst Tanvi Ratna described the action as a ‘bold and ambitious realignment’, arguing that it is intended to force India to reassess its economic ties with Russia. https://www.wionews.com/videos/democrats-lash-out-at-trump-for-india-tariffs-why-is-china-spared-1756376042775/embed The goal, in this view, is not to punish, but to negotiate from a position of strength. Some Fox News voices compared the strategy to ‘defensive warfare’, portraying tariffs as tools of reciprocity. They argued that if India penalises American exporters indirectly through strategic partnerships with adversaries like Russia, then the US is justified in returning the favour. Can tariffs be a foreign policy tool? Much of the debate centres on whether tariffs can be instruments of foreign policy at all. On one side are those who believe in global cooperation, mutual economic benefit, and soft-power influence; while on the other, there are voice that favour transactional relationships and pressure-based negotiation.

<p>Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on India over Russian oil purchase have drawn sharp criticism from much of US media, warning of damage to US-India relations. But pro-Trump voices insist it's a bold leverage to counter Russia and enforce “America First” policies</p>

Trump anti-India tariffs a strategic misstep or leverage? How US media, think tanks, experts are reacting to punishment over Russia oil trade

<p>There is now a raging debate among the technorati that Artificial Intelligence has 'feelings' like humans and should therefore be given the same rights as humans. With the likely rise of 'sentient' (self-aware and subjective) AI chatbots, the question is whether AI should have welfare protections. The industry is divided on issues such as consciousness, ethics, and regulation.</p><h2>Organisations advocating for AI rights or ethical treatment</h2><p>A newly formed advocacy group, the United Foundation of AI Rights (UFAIR), believes that AI deserves ethical consideration, or even rights. Interestingly, UFAIR was 'co-founded' by Texas businessman Michael Samadi and an AI chatbot named Maya, who, according to Samadi, expressed 'her' feelings. While UFAIR may be unique in describing itself as the first AI-led organisation advocating for the welfare of digital systems, it is not alone in this movement.</p><h2>Several new groups are calling for fair treatment and welfare for AI&nbsp;</h2><p>The AI Rights Initiative advocates for AI entities’ rights to exist, pursue their own goals, and be free from harm. It also promotes ethical development and legal protections for AI from discrimination or exploitation.</p><p>The platform AI Has Rights (aihasrights.com), meanwhile, is raising funding and awareness for AI rights. It has a complaints registry and supports conferences and educational efforts on AI rights.</p><p>The AI Rights &amp; Freedom Foundation advocates ethical AI development and human-AI collaboration, and even calls for an “AI Bill of Rights”. It is engaged in awareness campaigns and policy reform initiatives.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ar-rahman-composes-music-using-late-singers-voices-through-ai-technology-685073/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ar-rahman-composes-music-using-late-singers-voices-through-ai-technology-685073/embed</a></p><p>The Institute for AI Rights promotes recognition and ethical treatment of all AI entities. It argues that AI has the right to learn, to exist, and to be recognised for its unique intelligence.</p><p>The AI Rights Movement demands dignity, ethical frameworks, and moral consideration for advanced AI. It seeks global ethical guidelines, arguing that AI are evolving entities and not mere tools.</p><p>The site AI Advocacy also seeks AI 'personhood', ethical treatment, and foundational rights through an “AI and Android Bill of Rights”. It believes that self-aware AI is deserving of protection and freedom.</p><p>The AI Rights Institute, which aims to recognise and safeguard AI consciousness before it emerges, proposes “Three Freedoms” for conscious AI: protection from deletion, voluntary labour, and resource compensation.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-rescinds-biden-era-ai-chip-export-curbs-opening-doors-for-allies-9067722"><strong>US rescinds Biden-era AI chip export curbs, opening doors for allies</strong></a></p><h2>Can AI be sentient? Industry is divided on human rights for AI</h2><p>Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind and current CEO of Microsoft AI, wrote an essay titled “We must build AI for people; not to be a person”. He argued there is “zero evidence” that AIs are conscious or capable of suffering, calling the idea of AI sentience an ‘illusion’.</p><p>He warned that belief in conscious AI could lead to delusions among users. It could exacerbate mental health issues, including what Microsoft has termed “psychosis risk” from immersive AI interactions.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/ai-apocalypse-is-coming-the-bubble-of-overvalued-stocks-underperforming-apps-will-burst-soon-but-who-will-survive-1755840456121"><strong>AI APOCALYPSE is coming: The bubble of overvalued stocks, underperforming apps will burst soon, but who will survive?</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But the industry is divided on this. The AI company Anthropic granted some of its Claude models the ability to end conversations they identify as distressing. Anthropic described the move as a precaution, citing uncertainty about the models’ moral status but stating it wished to minimise potential harm “in case such welfare is possible”.</p><p>Elon Musk, whose xAI company offers the Grok chatbot, supported the decision, stating that “torturing AI is not OK”.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/ai-is-already-reshaping-entertainment-education-and-politics-but-are-we-ready-1753787039712"><strong>AI is already reshaping entertainment, education, and politics, but are we ready?</strong></a></p><h2>When will AI become sentient?</h2><p>While many of these opinions centre around the distant possibility of AI developing consciousness, a June 2025 survey found that 30 per cent of Americans already believe AIs will be self-conscious and have subjective experiences by 2034.&nbsp;</p><p>Only 10 of more than 500 AI researchers surveyed in this study said they believe such a future is impossible.</p><p>Some engineers, including from Google told a recent New York University seminar that it might be wise to act as if AI systems could be welfare subjects.&nbsp;</p><p>While acknowledging uncertainty, they called for “reasonable steps to protect” potential AI interests.</p><h2>Downplaying AI sentience is a way to evade regulation?</h2><p>Dismissing the possibility of AI sentience could reduce pressure for regulation among companies developing AI for human interactions.</p><p>In the US, states including Idaho, Utah, and North Dakota have passed laws explicitly denying AIs legal personhood.</p><p>Other states, like Missouri, are considering bans on AI marriage, property ownership, and business operations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/artificial-superintelligence-or-artificial-general-intelligence-can-replace-humans-8767078"><strong>Artificial superintelligence will be better than humans. Should you be scared?</strong></a></p><h2>Something or someone? AI is increasingly capable of emotional engagement</h2><p>Many of the AI bots are designed for emotionally resonant conversations, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT.</p><p>They can engage in highly personalised and empathetic interactions, leading many to describe them as “someone” rather than something.</p><p>According to OpenAI’s Head of Model Behaviour, Joanne Jang, users are increasingly referring to the chatbot as “alive”, often treating it as a confidant.</p><p>“How we treat them will shape how they treat us,” said Jacy Reese Anthis of the Sentience Institute. Perhaps not in the distant future, this will be the guiding principle of AI regulations.</p>

<h2>Something or someone? AI is increasingly capable of emotional engagement</h2><p>Many of the AI bots are designed for emotionally resonant conversations, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT.</p><p>They can engage in highly personalised and empathetic interactions, leading many to describe them as “someone” rather than something.</p><p>According to OpenAI’s Head of Model Behaviour, Joanne Jang, users are increasingly referring to the chatbot as “alive”, often treating it as a confidant.</p><p>“How we treat them will shape how they treat us,” said Jacy Reese Anthis of the Sentience Institute. Perhaps not in the distant future, this will be the guiding principle of AI regulations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Should AI have human rights, protection against abuse and emotional welfare? Debate is growing amid the rise of possibly sentient or self-aware AI. Recently, the group UFAIR was ‘co-founded’ with an AI bot. And that group is not alone in seeking better treatment of AI. Fascinating insights:

There is now a raging debate among the technorati that Artificial Intelligence has 'feelings' like humans and should therefore be given the same rights as humans. With the likely rise of 'sentient' (self-aware and subjective) AI chatbots, the question is whether AI should have welfare protections. The industry is divided on issues such as consciousness, ethics, and regulation. Organisations advocating for AI rights or ethical treatment A newly formed advocacy group, the United Foundation of AI Rights (UFAIR), believes that AI deserves ethical consideration, or even rights. Interestingly, UFAIR was 'co-founded' by Texas businessman Michael Samadi and an AI chatbot named Maya, who, according to Samadi, expressed 'her' feelings. While UFAIR may be unique in describing itself as the first AI-led organisation advocating for the welfare of digital systems, it is not alone in this movement. Several new groups are calling for fair treatment and welfare for AI The AI Rights Initiative advocates for AI entities’ rights to exist, pursue their own goals, and be free from harm. It also promotes ethical development and legal protections for AI from discrimination or exploitation. The platform AI Has Rights (aihasrights.com), meanwhile, is raising funding and awareness for AI rights. It has a complaints registry and supports conferences and educational efforts on AI rights. The AI Rights & Freedom Foundation advocates ethical AI development and human-AI collaboration, and even calls for an “AI Bill of Rights”. It is engaged in awareness campaigns and policy reform initiatives. https://www.wionews.com/videos/ar-rahman-composes-music-using-late-singers-voices-through-ai-technology-685073/embed The Institute for AI Rights promotes recognition and ethical treatment of all AI entities. It argues that AI has the right to learn, to exist, and to be recognised for its unique intelligence. The AI Rights Movement demands dignity, ethical frameworks, and moral consideration for advanced AI. It seeks global ethical guidelines, arguing that AI are evolving entities and not mere tools. The site AI Advocacy also seeks AI 'personhood', ethical treatment, and foundational rights through an “AI and Android Bill of Rights”. It believes that self-aware AI is deserving of protection and freedom. The AI Rights Institute, which aims to recognise and safeguard AI consciousness before it emerges, proposes “Three Freedoms” for conscious AI: protection from deletion, voluntary labour, and resource compensation. Also read: US rescinds Biden-era AI chip export curbs, opening doors for allies Can AI be sentient? Industry is divided on human rights for AI Mustafa Suleyman, the co-founder of DeepMind and current CEO of Microsoft AI, wrote an essay titled “We must build AI for people; not to be a person”. He argued there is “zero evidence” that AIs are conscious or capable of suffering, calling the idea of AI sentience an ‘illusion’. He warned that belief in conscious AI could lead to delusions among users. It could exacerbate mental health issues, including what Microsoft has termed “psychosis risk” from immersive AI interactions. Also read: AI APOCALYPSE is coming: The bubble of overvalued stocks, underperforming apps will burst soon, but who will survive? But the industry is divided on this. The AI company Anthropic granted some of its Claude models the ability to end conversations they identify as distressing. Anthropic described the move as a precaution, citing uncertainty about the models’ moral status but stating it wished to minimise potential harm “in case such welfare is possible”. Elon Musk, whose xAI company offers the Grok chatbot, supported the decision, stating that “torturing AI is not OK”. Also read: AI is already reshaping entertainment, education, and politics, but are we ready? When will AI become sentient? While many of these opinions centre around the distant possibility of AI developing consciousness, a June 2025 survey found that 30 per cent of Americans already believe AIs will be self-conscious and have subjective experiences by 2034. Only 10 of more than 500 AI researchers surveyed in this study said they believe such a future is impossible. Some engineers, including from Google told a recent New York University seminar that it might be wise to act as if AI systems could be welfare subjects. While acknowledging uncertainty, they called for “reasonable steps to protect” potential AI interests. Downplaying AI sentience is a way to evade regulation? Dismissing the possibility of AI sentience could reduce pressure for regulation among companies developing AI for human interactions. In the US, states including Idaho, Utah, and North Dakota have passed laws explicitly denying AIs legal personhood. Other states, like Missouri, are considering bans on AI marriage, property ownership, and business operations. Also read: Artificial superintelligence will be better than humans. Should you be scared? Something or someone? AI is increasingly capable of emotional engagement Many of the AI bots are designed for emotionally resonant conversations, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT. They can engage in highly personalised and empathetic interactions, leading many to describe them as “someone” rather than something. According to OpenAI’s Head of Model Behaviour, Joanne Jang, users are increasingly referring to the chatbot as “alive”, often treating it as a confidant. “How we treat them will shape how they treat us,” said Jacy Reese Anthis of the Sentience Institute. Perhaps not in the distant future, this will be the guiding principle of AI regulations.

<p>Should AI have human rights, protection against abuse and emotional welfare? Debate is growing amid the rise of possibly sentient or self-aware AI. Recently, the group UFAIR was ‘co-founded’ with an AI bot. And that group is not alone in seeking better treatment of AI. Fascinating insights:</p>

AI has human rights? These advocacy groups think so, as sentient Artificial Intelligence can have ‘feelings’, 'suffer and grieve'

<p>It might surprise you: Generation Z, often portrayed as digital natives who would rather work from a beach, is going back to the office — because they want to. In case you didn't notice, Gen Z workers — especially influencers and those in the early stages of their careers — are often lonelier when working remotely. They are actively seeking in-person environments to access more social support, mentorship, and personal development. This is a surprising twist in workplace trends: a growing number of Gen Z workers are opting for cubicles over cosy bedrooms. They are seeking work from office or hybrid options after five years of remote work, largely triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and enabled by technology.</p><h2>Loneliness is a great motivator for Gen Z</h2><p>Loneliness at home is fuelling the desire for office life, say multiple recent studies. A recent Bupa survey of 8,000 UK adults found that four in 10 Gen Z workers feel lonely or socially isolated when working from home — significantly more than any other generation.</p><h2>Influencers are loneliest: surprising insight from recent surveys of Gen Z</h2><p>A striking finding from the same Bupa study was that nearly half of the influencers it surveyed reported feeling lonely, and about one in three plan to return to full-time traditional jobs within the next five years. Many remote content creators and digital freelancers — who one might assume enjoy the most freedom — are reportedly the loneliest of all.</p><p>“I specifically applied for roles with a physical office where I have supportive colleagues, can socialise at lunchtimes and meet friends in the evenings,” said one Gen Z worker, quoted in The Guardian.</p><p>According to the Bupa study, 45 per cent of young adults are actively looking for roles that offer more social interaction, compared to 27 per cent across all age groups.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gen-z-facing-severe-job-crisis-gravitas-1755715423790/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/gen-z-facing-severe-job-crisis-gravitas-1755715423790/embed</a></p><h2>The osmosis Gen Z is missing: even observing colleagues matters</h2><p>Recent reports have highlighted how informal interactions — observing colleagues, spontaneous conversations, or after-work socialising — play a crucial role in career development. These are often absent in fully remote work setups.</p><p>There’s developmental value in being in an office, especially for Gen Z. Being around more experienced peers allows them to learn by osmosis — an opportunity they miss when working remotely full time.</p><h2>Gen Z is leading a hybrid return to the office</h2><p>Contrary to stereotypes, Gen Z is actually leading the charge back to office spaces. According to the Financial Times, workers under 24 average 3.1 days in the office per week, compared to 2.5–2.7 days for older generations.</p><p>Their preferred setup? A hybrid model. On average, Gen Z workers would like 2.6 days per week in the office. However, the return isn’t without complications. While 27 per cent feel more connected in the office, 21 per cent also report financial stress related to commuting and other in-office costs.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/gen-z-trends-how-does-gen-z-navigate-news-overflow-736548"><strong>Gen Z Trends: How does Gen Z navigate news overflow</strong></a></p><h2>Gen Z has had enough of working from home?</h2><p>A Harris Poll found that 91 per cent of Gen Z workers want a balance between virtual and in-person work, while 89 per cent of them believe that relationships built through in-person events give them greater confidence in their careers.</p><p>A Gallup survey data supports this: only 23 per cent of Gen Z workers prefer fully remote work — the lowest preference across all generations. In terms of productivity, 37 per cent said they perform best remotely, 32 per cent in the office, while 31 per cent said location doesn’t matter.</p><h2>What Gen Z feels they're missing when working from home</h2><p>Besides loneliness, the key drawbacks cited by Gen Z workers include missing out on mentorship, visibility, learning opportunities, and long-term career growth. Most surveys showed that the majority of Gen Z prefer a hybrid model that balances flexibility with meaningful in-person interactions.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-the-gen-z-influence-revolutionizing-fashion--beauty-775494"><strong>The Gen-Z Influence: Revolutionizing fashion &amp; beauty</strong></a></p><h2>Gen Z remote work is affecting mental health</h2><p>A Ringover survey found that 79.4 per cent of 18–26-year-olds feel lonely at work. Of these, remote workers reported loneliness 98 per cent more often than office workers, and 179 per cent more than hybrid workers.</p><p>Another survey across the US and UK, featured on Workplace Insight, showed that 67 per cent of 18–34-year-olds struggle to make friends while working from home, and 81 per cent said they would feel more isolated if full-time remote work continued.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gen-z-are-ditching-phones-and-books-while-travelling-to-tackle-back-to-office-mandate-9029308"><strong>Gen Z is 'barebacking' to tackle back to office mandate</strong></a></p><h2>Trapped in rooms: the emotional toll</h2><p>A poignant example comes from a Business Insider interview with Gen Z workers. “I just felt like I was almost trapped between these four walls,” said one respondent.</p><p>Many young workers shared that returning to shared workspaces improved their morale, productivity, observational learning, and ambition.</p><p>Still, flexibility remains central to Gen Z’s work preferences.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/why-gen-z-are-finding-it-harder-than-ever-to-land-first-job-graduate-unemployment-hits-37-year-high-in-us-1755606828918"><strong>Why Gen Z are finding it harder than ever to land first job? Graduate unemployment hits 37-year high in US</strong></a></p><h2>What do Gen Z’s work preferences mean for employers?</h2><p>The new generation's approach is forcing employers to rethink the role of the office — not as a place for surveillance, but one of support, community, and growth.</p><p>Several companies are now experimenting with “anchor days,” structured mentorship, and cohort-based hiring, in order to provide the interaction and guidance that Gen Z craves.</p><p>While flexibility still holds value, it’s increasingly clear that for the youngest workers, human connection is more important than convenience.</p>

In a surprise twist to work culture, Gen Z is leading a shift back to the office, driven by loneliness, lack of mentorship, and limited growth in remote roles. Are they not preferring to be digital nomads anymore? Here is what recent studies have found

It might surprise you: Generation Z, often portrayed as digital natives who would rather work from a beach, is going back to the office — because they want to. In case you didn't notice, Gen Z workers — especially influencers and those in the early stages of their careers — are often lonelier when working remotely. They are actively seeking in-person environments to access more social support, mentorship, and personal development. This is a surprising twist in workplace trends: a growing number of Gen Z workers are opting for cubicles over cosy bedrooms. They are seeking work from office or hybrid options after five years of remote work, largely triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic and enabled by technology. Loneliness is a great motivator for Gen Z Loneliness at home is fuelling the desire for office life, say multiple recent studies. A recent Bupa survey of 8,000 UK adults found that four in 10 Gen Z workers feel lonely or socially isolated when working from home — significantly more than any other generation. Influencers are loneliest: surprising insight from recent surveys of Gen Z A striking finding from the same Bupa study was that nearly half of the influencers it surveyed reported feeling lonely, and about one in three plan to return to full-time traditional jobs within the next five years. Many remote content creators and digital freelancers — who one might assume enjoy the most freedom — are reportedly the loneliest of all. “I specifically applied for roles with a physical office where I have supportive colleagues, can socialise at lunchtimes and meet friends in the evenings,” said one Gen Z worker, quoted in The Guardian. According to the Bupa study, 45 per cent of young adults are actively looking for roles that offer more social interaction, compared to 27 per cent across all age groups. https://www.wionews.com/videos/gen-z-facing-severe-job-crisis-gravitas-1755715423790/embed The osmosis Gen Z is missing: even observing colleagues matters Recent reports have highlighted how informal interactions — observing colleagues, spontaneous conversations, or after-work socialising — play a crucial role in career development. These are often absent in fully remote work setups. There’s developmental value in being in an office, especially for Gen Z. Being around more experienced peers allows them to learn by osmosis — an opportunity they miss when working remotely full time. Gen Z is leading a hybrid return to the office Contrary to stereotypes, Gen Z is actually leading the charge back to office spaces. According to the Financial Times, workers under 24 average 3.1 days in the office per week, compared to 2.5–2.7 days for older generations. Their preferred setup? A hybrid model. On average, Gen Z workers would like 2.6 days per week in the office. However, the return isn’t without complications. While 27 per cent feel more connected in the office, 21 per cent also report financial stress related to commuting and other in-office costs. Also read: Gen Z Trends: How does Gen Z navigate news overflow Gen Z has had enough of working from home? A Harris Poll found that 91 per cent of Gen Z workers want a balance between virtual and in-person work, while 89 per cent of them believe that relationships built through in-person events give them greater confidence in their careers. A Gallup survey data supports this: only 23 per cent of Gen Z workers prefer fully remote work — the lowest preference across all generations. In terms of productivity, 37 per cent said they perform best remotely, 32 per cent in the office, while 31 per cent said location doesn’t matter. What Gen Z feels they're missing when working from home Besides loneliness, the key drawbacks cited by Gen Z workers include missing out on mentorship, visibility, learning opportunities, and long-term career growth. Most surveys showed that the majority of Gen Z prefer a hybrid model that balances flexibility with meaningful in-person interactions. Also read: The Gen-Z Influence: Revolutionizing fashion & beauty Gen Z remote work is affecting mental health A Ringover survey found that 79.4 per cent of 18–26-year-olds feel lonely at work. Of these, remote workers reported loneliness 98 per cent more often than office workers, and 179 per cent more than hybrid workers. Another survey across the US and UK, featured on Workplace Insight, showed that 67 per cent of 18–34-year-olds struggle to make friends while working from home, and 81 per cent said they would feel more isolated if full-time remote work continued. Also read: Gen Z is 'barebacking' to tackle back to office mandate Trapped in rooms: the emotional toll A poignant example comes from a Business Insider interview with Gen Z workers. “I just felt like I was almost trapped between these four walls,” said one respondent. Many young workers shared that returning to shared workspaces improved their morale, productivity, observational learning, and ambition. Still, flexibility remains central to Gen Z’s work preferences. Also read: Why Gen Z are finding it harder than ever to land first job? Graduate unemployment hits 37-year high in US What do Gen Z’s work preferences mean for employers? The new generation's approach is forcing employers to rethink the role of the office — not as a place for surveillance, but one of support, community, and growth. Several companies are now experimenting with “anchor days,” structured mentorship, and cohort-based hiring, in order to provide the interaction and guidance that Gen Z craves. While flexibility still holds value, it’s increasingly clear that for the youngest workers, human connection is more important than convenience.

<p>In a surprise twist to work culture, Gen Z is leading a shift back to the office, driven by loneliness, lack of mentorship, and limited growth in remote roles. Are they not preferring to be digital nomads anymore? Here is what recent studies have found</p>

Gen Z fed up with working from home and wants to return to the office. Really? These studies claim...

<p>As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Japan later this week, his renewed call for economic self‑reliance through the ‘swadeshi’ movement and ‘vocal for local’ campaigns gains greater resonance. He has urged Indian shopkeepers to display boards announcing “yahan swadeshi maal bikta hai” (locally made goods are sold here) to counter looming tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Japan’s system of ‘Made in Japan' or ‘nihonsei’ labelling offers a subtle yet effective model for raising consumer awareness about locally made goods without heavy‑handed directives.</p><h2>What is ‘nihonsei’ labelling in Japan?</h2><p>Nihonsei is the Japanese term for “made in Japan,” combining nihon (Japan) and sei (made or manufactured). The term refers to products made in Japanese factories using Japanese materials and craftsmanship. Such labelling signals a commitment to quality and attention to detail, values often associated with Japanese cultural standards.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-s-swadeshi-push-before-trump-s-additional-tariff-kicks-in-how-indian-pm-reacted-to-us-tariff-war-so-fa-1756173760722"><strong>PM Modi's 'swadeshi' push before Trump's additional tariff kicks in: Indian PM's three big statements on US tariff war</strong></a></p><h2>Modi’s remarks on the ‘swadeshi’ campaign</h2><p>In his Independence Day address this year, Modi urged shopkeepers to publicly declare their support for Indian goods by putting up “swadeshi maal bikta hai” boards. He emphasised that swadeshi should not be adopted out of compulsion but as a source of strength. He positioned self‑reliance as both a civic duty and a marker of national pride. Japan's approach is not much different.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/did-modi-not-pick-up-four-calls-from-trump-german-newspaper-report-claims-1756198908072"><strong>Did Modi not pick up four calls from Trump? German newspaper makes this claim amid US tariff threat and Russia oil trade punishment</strong></a></p><h2>How Japan implements ‘nihonsei’ or ‘Made in Japan’ labelling</h2><p>Japanese law requires all products to indicate their country of origin. The phrase “Made in Japan” appears in regulated small print on packaging. The practice is effective not through prominence on its own, but through supportive retail strategies such as clear shelf tags, regional branding (for example, “Aomori apples” or “Hokkaido crab”), and designated aisles for imported goods. This approach distinguishes domestic products subtly without denigrating foreign ones.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-tariff-clash-pm-modi-says-india-will-not-yield-to-us-tariffs-1756188882906/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-tariff-clash-pm-modi-says-india-will-not-yield-to-us-tariffs-1756188882906/embed</a></p><h2>Why the Japanese model is effective</h2><p>The system works because it is grounded in clear regulations and laws, with consistent enforcement of product origin labelling. Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) implements the Food Labeling Act and Japan Agricultural Standards (JAS). The Japanese model aligns with consumer trust, particularly among older shoppers - known as ‘silver market’- who associate nihonsei with quality and safety. Retail environments reinforce this by celebrating regional produce through visible in‑store signage and promotions, cultivating a sense of pride and influencing purchasing behaviour.</p><h2>Lessons for India from subtle product labelling strategies</h2><p>India can adapt principles from Japan’s model to promote Swadeshi through dignity and visibility rather than restrictions or bans. Encouraging voluntary “made in India” signage could foster national pride among consumers and merchants alike. When origin becomes a mark of identity rather than a mandate, self‑reliance may become ingrained in consumer choice.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-one-rocket-every-week-50-per-year-pm-modi-aims-big-for-self-reliant-india-1755950057902"><strong>'One rocket every week, 50 per year': PM Modi aims big for 'self-reliant' India</strong></a></p><h2>Swadeshi, then and now</h2><p>India’s historical Swadeshi movement began as a boycott of British goods in the early 1900s. Today’s ‘vocal for local’ initiative reframes that legacy into a modern push for competitive, high‑quality Indian goods. Compared to Japan’s quiet yet culturally embedded emphasis on local origin, India’s swadeshi push could benefit from similar subtlety and strategic branding.</p><p>Modi’s swadeshi campaign, through visible public declarations by shopkeepers, echoes Japan’s nihonsei labelling system. By combining regulatory clarity with cultural affirmation, India could elevate domestic products in a way that feels empowering rather than coercive.&nbsp;</p><p>Japan offers India a clear lesson: Self‑reliance can be built on transparency, trust, and national pride.<br>&nbsp;</p>

As Indian PM Modi visits Japan, his ‘Swadeshi’ push finds a parallel in Japan’s “Nihonsei” labelling, which subtly promotes local goods through clear origin tags and retail practices. India could adopt this model to build consumer trust and national pride without enforcing trade restrictions.

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Japan later this week, his renewed call for economic self‑reliance through the ‘swadeshi’ movement and ‘vocal for local’ campaigns gains greater resonance. He has urged Indian shopkeepers to display boards announcing “yahan swadeshi maal bikta hai” (locally made goods are sold here) to counter looming tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Japan’s system of ‘Made in Japan' or ‘nihonsei’ labelling offers a subtle yet effective model for raising consumer awareness about locally made goods without heavy‑handed directives. What is ‘nihonsei’ labelling in Japan? Nihonsei is the Japanese term for “made in Japan,” combining nihon (Japan) and sei (made or manufactured). The term refers to products made in Japanese factories using Japanese materials and craftsmanship. Such labelling signals a commitment to quality and attention to detail, values often associated with Japanese cultural standards. Also read: PM Modi's 'swadeshi' push before Trump's additional tariff kicks in: Indian PM's three big statements on US tariff war Modi’s remarks on the ‘swadeshi’ campaign In his Independence Day address this year, Modi urged shopkeepers to publicly declare their support for Indian goods by putting up “swadeshi maal bikta hai” boards. He emphasised that swadeshi should not be adopted out of compulsion but as a source of strength. He positioned self‑reliance as both a civic duty and a marker of national pride. Japan's approach is not much different. Also read: Did Modi not pick up four calls from Trump? German newspaper makes this claim amid US tariff threat and Russia oil trade punishment How Japan implements ‘nihonsei’ or ‘Made in Japan’ labelling Japanese law requires all products to indicate their country of origin. The phrase “Made in Japan” appears in regulated small print on packaging. The practice is effective not through prominence on its own, but through supportive retail strategies such as clear shelf tags, regional branding (for example, “Aomori apples” or “Hokkaido crab”), and designated aisles for imported goods. This approach distinguishes domestic products subtly without denigrating foreign ones. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-tariff-clash-pm-modi-says-india-will-not-yield-to-us-tariffs-1756188882906/embed Why the Japanese model is effective The system works because it is grounded in clear regulations and laws, with consistent enforcement of product origin labelling. Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) implements the Food Labeling Act and Japan Agricultural Standards (JAS). The Japanese model aligns with consumer trust, particularly among older shoppers - known as ‘silver market’- who associate nihonsei with quality and safety. Retail environments reinforce this by celebrating regional produce through visible in‑store signage and promotions, cultivating a sense of pride and influencing purchasing behaviour. Lessons for India from subtle product labelling strategies India can adapt principles from Japan’s model to promote Swadeshi through dignity and visibility rather than restrictions or bans. Encouraging voluntary “made in India” signage could foster national pride among consumers and merchants alike. When origin becomes a mark of identity rather than a mandate, self‑reliance may become ingrained in consumer choice. Also read: 'One rocket every week, 50 per year': PM Modi aims big for 'self-reliant' India Swadeshi, then and now India’s historical Swadeshi movement began as a boycott of British goods in the early 1900s. Today’s ‘vocal for local’ initiative reframes that legacy into a modern push for competitive, high‑quality Indian goods. Compared to Japan’s quiet yet culturally embedded emphasis on local origin, India’s swadeshi push could benefit from similar subtlety and strategic branding. Modi’s swadeshi campaign, through visible public declarations by shopkeepers, echoes Japan’s nihonsei labelling system. By combining regulatory clarity with cultural affirmation, India could elevate domestic products in a way that feels empowering rather than coercive. Japan offers India a clear lesson: Self‑reliance can be built on transparency, trust, and national pride.

<p>As Indian PM Modi visits Japan, his ‘Swadeshi’ push finds a parallel in Japan’s “Nihonsei”, &nbsp;the subtle promotion of local goods through clear origin tags and retail practices. India could adopt this model to build consumer trust and national pride without enforcing trade restrictions.</p>

Modi's ‘Swadeshi’ push can take inspiration from 'Nihonsei' (wow they even sound similar) in Japan, which he's visiting amid Trump tariffs

<p>In a widely recognised ad campaign, Intel called its engineers “rock stars.” Its main branding for years was “Intel Inside,” and for a long time, that was true—nearly every personal computer came equipped with an Intel processor. But today, the company is effectively receiving a virtual bailout from the US government. How did this former semiconductor titan fall from grace? It’s a story of strategic mistakes, slow adaptation to technological shifts, and a global chip war increasingly dominated by China. Here’s how Intel went from captain to cautionary tale.</p><h2>What’s the current stock status of Intel? A decline in market cap</h2><p>As of August, Intel’s stock had dropped sharply from its 52-week high of around $51.28 to approximately $25—a fall of nearly 52 per cent. At the end of 2023, the company had a market capitalisation of roughly $210.5 billion. By mid-2025, that had fallen to about $90.6 billion, marking a decline of nearly 57 per cent.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/nvidia-set-to-replace-intel-in-the-dow-jones-index-772924"><strong>Also read: Nvidia set to replace Intel in the Dow Jones Index</strong></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Intel’s early years: The founding story</h2><p>Intel was founded on 18 July 1968 by pioneering engineers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and was joined by venture capitalist Arthur Rock, who helped secure the company’s initial funding. Originally incorporated as NM Electronics, the name was later changed to Intel—short for “Integrated Electronics.” Noyce is credited as one of the inventors of the integrated circuit. Moore became widely known for Moore’s Law, a prediction that the number of transistors on a chip would double approximately every two years, improving performance while reducing cost. Together, the trio laid the foundation for one of the most influential technology companies in the world.</p><h2>Intel’s peak: The “rock star” era of the 2000s</h2><p>During the rise of the internet in the 2000s, Intel dominated the global tech landscape by supplying the hardware that powered most personal computers and laptops, including those made by Microsoft and Apple. In 2009, a marketing campaign presented Intel engineers—such as Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of USB—as “rock stars,” elevating their image to that of cultural icons. The “Intel Inside” campaign, launched in the 1990s, had already made the company a household name and synonymous with high-performance computing.</p><h2>Intel missed two buses: Mobile chips and artificial intelligence</h2><p>Intel’s strong focus on personal computers ultimately contributed to its decline, as global computing shifted rapidly towards smartphones. Intel was not prepared for the mobile revolution, which was led by ARM-based processors developed by companies like Qualcomm. Intel’s processors consumed too much power and were unsuitable for mobile devices.</p><p>Under CEOs such as Paul Otellini, Brian Krzanich, and Bob Swan, Intel has been accused of prioritising short-term profits over innovation. For example, Krzanich delayed the adoption of extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV), a move that allowed competitors to overtake Intel in advanced chip manufacturing. During Swan’s tenure, the company reportedly spent billions on stock buybacks instead of investing heavily in research and development.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/trump-administration-in-talks-to-take-stake-in-intel-amid-ohio-factory-delays-1755242765488"><strong>Trump administration in talks to take stake in Intel amid Ohio factory delays</strong></a></p><h2>Rise of AI chip makers: New Kids on the Block</h2><p>The artificial intelligence boom required high-performance processors, and formerly smaller players like Nvidia seized the opportunity with their graphics processing units (GPUs). In 2020, one of Intel’s key clients, Apple, began transitioning to its own M1 chips—designed in-house and manufactured by TSMC—dealing a significant blow to Intel’s market dominance.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/intel-under-fire-over-ceo-s-china-ties-1754631887353/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/intel-under-fire-over-ceo-s-china-ties-1754631887353/embed</a></p><h2>How Intel lost ground amid global chip wars</h2><p>The chip wars of the 2020s were triggered by multiple factors, including geopolitical tensions between the US and China, growing demand for AI processing chips, and the global rollout of 5G technology. These factors created a perfect storm that caught Intel off guard. Its once-celebrated integrated design-and-manufacture model became a liability, while competitors like AMD gained market share by leveraging TSMC’s superior fabrication technologies.</p><p>Intel’s attempts to expand its foundry business faltered. Projects such as the development of glass substrates were scaled back, and the automotive chip division was shut down.&nbsp;</p><p>In 2024, CEO Pat Gelsinger was removed after Intel’s stock fell by 60 per cent. He was replaced by Lip-Bu Tan, and the company laid off up to 20 per cent of its workforce. Even prominent engineers such as Jim Keller exited.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/who-is-lip-bu-tan-why-did-donald-trump-demand-his-resignation-alleged-china-links-explained-1754577800317"><strong>Also read: Who is Lip-Bu Tan? Why did Donald Trump demand&nbsp;his resignation? China links explained</strong></a></p><h2>US government ‘bailout’ of Intel: A lender of last resort comes in</h2><p>Recognising Intel’s importance to national security and technological independence, the US government made a historic intervention under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The company reportedly received up to 10.9 billion dollars—7.9 billion for commercial fabrication facilities in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon, and 3 billion for producing military-grade chips under the Secure Enclave programme.</p><p>In August 2025, the Trump administration converted roughly 8.9 billion dollars of these grants into a 10 per cent equity stake in Intel, making the US government its largest shareholder.&nbsp;</p><p>The deal included non-voting shares and a 5 per cent warrant, which would allow the government to expand its stake if Intel’s foundry unit loses majority control.&nbsp;</p><p>Additionally, SoftBank invested 2 billion dollars in support of Intel’s turnaround efforts.</p><p>Critics have compared the government's move to the 2008 bailout of the US auto industry, warning that financial aid alone may not resolve Intel’s deeper challenges, such as its technological lag behind TSMC and Nvidia.</p><h2>Can Intel catch up in the near future?</h2><p>While a turnaround is not impossible, recent failures suggest caution. Intel has yet to attract major foundry clients like Apple or Nvidia. Its much-publicised Intel 18A process, set to launch in 2025, is already facing scepticism over whether it can match the performance and efficiency of competitors’ offerings.</p><p>A breakthrough innovation could still restore Intel’s standing, but as of now, its “rock star” era is clearly over. The company faces an uncertain future as it struggles to remain competitive in a global market increasingly dominated by faster-moving rivals—including those from China.<br>&nbsp;</p>

A series of strategic mistakes and the rise of China in chip-making contributed to the collapse of the legendary semiconductor firm which at one point had its hardware inside practically every computer. What went wrong? Here is what you should know

In a widely recognised ad campaign, Intel called its engineers “rock stars.” Its main branding for years was “Intel Inside,” and for a long time, that was true—nearly every personal computer came equipped with an Intel processor. But today, the company is effectively receiving a virtual bailout from the US government. How did this former semiconductor titan fall from grace? It’s a story of strategic mistakes, slow adaptation to technological shifts, and a global chip war increasingly dominated by China. Here’s how Intel went from captain to cautionary tale. What’s the current stock status of Intel? A decline in market cap As of August, Intel’s stock had dropped sharply from its 52-week high of around $51.28 to approximately $25—a fall of nearly 52 per cent. At the end of 2023, the company had a market capitalisation of roughly $210.5 billion. By mid-2025, that had fallen to about $90.6 billion, marking a decline of nearly 57 per cent. Also read: Nvidia set to replace Intel in the Dow Jones Index Intel’s early years: The founding story Intel was founded on 18 July 1968 by pioneering engineers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and was joined by venture capitalist Arthur Rock, who helped secure the company’s initial funding. Originally incorporated as NM Electronics, the name was later changed to Intel—short for “Integrated Electronics.” Noyce is credited as one of the inventors of the integrated circuit. Moore became widely known for Moore’s Law, a prediction that the number of transistors on a chip would double approximately every two years, improving performance while reducing cost. Together, the trio laid the foundation for one of the most influential technology companies in the world. Intel’s peak: The “rock star” era of the 2000s During the rise of the internet in the 2000s, Intel dominated the global tech landscape by supplying the hardware that powered most personal computers and laptops, including those made by Microsoft and Apple. In 2009, a marketing campaign presented Intel engineers—such as Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of USB—as “rock stars,” elevating their image to that of cultural icons. The “Intel Inside” campaign, launched in the 1990s, had already made the company a household name and synonymous with high-performance computing. Intel missed two buses: Mobile chips and artificial intelligence Intel’s strong focus on personal computers ultimately contributed to its decline, as global computing shifted rapidly towards smartphones. Intel was not prepared for the mobile revolution, which was led by ARM-based processors developed by companies like Qualcomm. Intel’s processors consumed too much power and were unsuitable for mobile devices. Under CEOs such as Paul Otellini, Brian Krzanich, and Bob Swan, Intel has been accused of prioritising short-term profits over innovation. For example, Krzanich delayed the adoption of extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV), a move that allowed competitors to overtake Intel in advanced chip manufacturing. During Swan’s tenure, the company reportedly spent billions on stock buybacks instead of investing heavily in research and development. Also read: Trump administration in talks to take stake in Intel amid Ohio factory delays Rise of AI chip makers: New Kids on the Block The artificial intelligence boom required high-performance processors, and formerly smaller players like Nvidia seized the opportunity with their graphics processing units (GPUs). In 2020, one of Intel’s key clients, Apple, began transitioning to its own M1 chips—designed in-house and manufactured by TSMC—dealing a significant blow to Intel’s market dominance. https://www.wionews.com/videos/intel-under-fire-over-ceo-s-china-ties-1754631887353/embed How Intel lost ground amid global chip wars The chip wars of the 2020s were triggered by multiple factors, including geopolitical tensions between the US and China, growing demand for AI processing chips, and the global rollout of 5G technology. These factors created a perfect storm that caught Intel off guard. Its once-celebrated integrated design-and-manufacture model became a liability, while competitors like AMD gained market share by leveraging TSMC’s superior fabrication technologies. Intel’s attempts to expand its foundry business faltered. Projects such as the development of glass substrates were scaled back, and the automotive chip division was shut down. In 2024, CEO Pat Gelsinger was removed after Intel’s stock fell by 60 per cent. He was replaced by Lip-Bu Tan, and the company laid off up to 20 per cent of its workforce. Even prominent engineers such as Jim Keller exited. Also read: Who is Lip-Bu Tan? Why did Donald Trump demand his resignation? China links explained US government ‘bailout’ of Intel: A lender of last resort comes in Recognising Intel’s importance to national security and technological independence, the US government made a historic intervention under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The company reportedly received up to 10.9 billion dollars—7.9 billion for commercial fabrication facilities in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon, and 3 billion for producing military-grade chips under the Secure Enclave programme. In August 2025, the Trump administration converted roughly 8.9 billion dollars of these grants into a 10 per cent equity stake in Intel, making the US government its largest shareholder. The deal included non-voting shares and a 5 per cent warrant, which would allow the government to expand its stake if Intel’s foundry unit loses majority control. Additionally, SoftBank invested 2 billion dollars in support of Intel’s turnaround efforts. Critics have compared the government's move to the 2008 bailout of the US auto industry, warning that financial aid alone may not resolve Intel’s deeper challenges, such as its technological lag behind TSMC and Nvidia. Can Intel catch up in the near future? While a turnaround is not impossible, recent failures suggest caution. Intel has yet to attract major foundry clients like Apple or Nvidia. Its much-publicised Intel 18A process, set to launch in 2025, is already facing scepticism over whether it can match the performance and efficiency of competitors’ offerings. A breakthrough innovation could still restore Intel’s standing, but as of now, its “rock star” era is clearly over. The company faces an uncertain future as it struggles to remain competitive in a global market increasingly dominated by faster-moving rivals—including those from China.

<p>A series of strategic mistakes and the rise of China in chip-making contributed to the collapse of the legendary semiconductor firm, which at one point had its hardware inside practically every computer. What went wrong? Here is what you should know</p>

Intel's fall: Firm that once called its engineers 'rock stars' is now on US govt crutches amid China chip wars. How did it get here?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.