Microsoft is reportedly changing how it powers some of its AI products by reducing its reliance on models from OpenAI and Anthropic. According to a report by India Today, the company is replacing some ChatGPT and Claude models with its own AI models and smaller alternatives to lower operating costs. The reported move comes as technology companies spend billions of dollars on AI infrastructure, including powerful chips and large data centres. As AI adoption grows, keeping costs under control has become one of the industry's biggest challenges.<h2>Why is Microsoft changing its AI strategy?</h2>Running advanced AI models is expensive. Every user query requires computing power, and those costs rise quickly when millions of people use AI services every day. Microsoft has invested heavily in AI infrastructure, but it is also looking for ways to make its services more efficient.Instead of using the largest and most expensive models for every task, Microsoft is reportedly selecting smaller or internally developed models for requests that do not require the highest level of reasoning. This approach can significantly reduce computing costs while maintaining a similar user experience for routine tasks.<h2>What could replace ChatGPT and Claude?</h2>According to the report, Microsoft is increasingly relying on its own Phi family of small language models and other internally developed AI systems in selected products. The company is also expected to continue using OpenAI's latest models where they offer clear advantages, particularly for more complex reasoning, coding and enterprise workloads. Rather than completely replacing ChatGPT or Claude, Microsoft appears to be adopting a multi-model strategy, selecting different models depending on the task.<h2>A wider trend across the AI industry</h2>Microsoft's reported move reflects a broader shift in artificial intelligence. For the past two years, companies competed mainly by building larger and more powerful AI models. Today, many are focusing on efficiency instead.Developers are trying to lower the cost of every AI query while improving speed and reducing energy consumption. This is becoming increasingly important as AI services expand to hundreds of millions of users worldwide. If the report is accurate, Microsoft's latest strategy could signal where the AI industry is heading next not simply towards bigger models, but towards smarter and more cost-effective ones.

Microsoft is reportedly replacing some ChatGPT and Claude models with its own AI systems and smaller models to reduce computing costs. The move reflects a growing industry trend where efficiency, speed and lower infrastructure costs are becoming as important as AI performance.


Microsoft is reportedly changing how it powers some of its AI products by reducing its reliance on models from OpenAI and Anthropic. According to a report by India Today, the company is replacing some ChatGPT and Claude models with its own AI models and smaller alternatives to lower operating costs. The reported move comes as technology companies spend billions of dollars on AI infrastructure, including powerful chips and large data centres. As AI adoption grows, keeping costs under control has become one of the industry's biggest challenges. Why is Microsoft changing its AI strategy? Running advanced AI models is expensive. Every user query requires computing power, and those costs rise quickly when millions of people use AI services every day. Microsoft has invested heavily in AI infrastructure, but it is also looking for ways to make its services more efficient. Instead of using the largest and most expensive models for every task, Microsoft is reportedly selecting smaller or internally developed models for requests that do not require the highest level of reasoning. This approach can significantly reduce computing costs while maintaining a similar user experience for routine tasks. What could replace ChatGPT and Claude? According to the report, Microsoft is increasingly relying on its own Phi family of small language models and other internally developed AI systems in selected products. The company is also expected to continue using OpenAI's latest models where they offer clear advantages, particularly for more complex reasoning, coding and enterprise workloads. Rather than completely replacing ChatGPT or Claude, Microsoft appears to be adopting a multi-model strategy, selecting different models depending on the task. A wider trend across the AI industry Microsoft's reported move reflects a broader shift in artificial intelligence. For the past two years, companies competed mainly by building larger and more powerful AI models. Today, many are focusing on efficiency instead. Developers are trying to lower the cost of every AI query while improving speed and reducing energy consumption. This is becoming increasingly important as AI services expand to hundreds of millions of users worldwide. If the report is accurate, Microsoft's latest strategy could signal where the AI industry is heading next not simply towards bigger models, but towards smarter and more cost-effective ones.

Microsoft is reportedly replacing some ChatGPT and Claude models with its own AI systems and smaller models to reduce computing costs. The move reflects a growing industry trend where efficiency, speed and lower infrastructure costs are becoming as important as AI performance.

Microsoft reportedly replaces ChatGPT and Claude models to reduce AI spending

Blue Origin is preparing for one of the biggest fundraising rounds in the history of the private space industry. According to CNBC, Jeff Bezos' rocket company is looking to raise around $10 billion, valuing the company at approximately $130 billion.It will be the first time Blue Origin has accepted large-scale outside investment after years of relying mainly on funding from Bezos himself. The move is significant because it gives investors a rare opportunity to back one of the world's largest private space companies. The fundraising also comes only weeks after SpaceX completed a record-breaking IPO, adding fresh momentum to the commercial space industry.<h2>How is the funding round structured?</h2>According to people familiar with the discussions, Bezos is expected to invest $2 billion of his own money in the round. Investment firm Coatue Management is reportedly set to contribute about $4 billion, while the remaining $4 billion is expected to come from several institutional investors. CNBC reported that demand for the remaining allocation has been strong. If completed, the deal would value Blue Origin among the world's most valuable privately controlled aerospace companies.<h2>Why is Blue Origin raising money now?</h2>For years, Bezos funded Blue Origin largely through personal wealth, including proceeds from selling Amazon shares. However, developing reusable rockets, lunar landers and future space infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital. Bringing in outside investors gives the company greater financial flexibility while reducing its dependence on Bezos alone.In an interview with CNBC in May, Bezos said it was "a good time" to consider external investment as the company enters its next phase of growth.<h2>What does it mean for the space industry?</h2>The fundraising reflects growing investor confidence in the commercial space sector. Blue Origin is developing launch vehicles such as New Glenn, while also working on lunar exploration projects, satellite launch services and long-term space infrastructure. The timing is notable. SpaceX's recent IPO demonstrated that investors are willing to place massive bets on commercial space companies. Blue Origin's fundraising suggests competition between Bezos and Elon Musk is expanding beyond rockets into financial markets. If the round closes as expected, Blue Origin will have billions of dollars to accelerate development of future launch systems and compete more aggressively in an industry expected to grow rapidly over the coming decade.

Blue Origin is reportedly raising $10 billion in its first outside funding round, valuing the company at $130 billion. Jeff Bezos is expected to invest $2 billion as the space company looks to expand after SpaceX's record-breaking IPO.

Blue Origin is preparing for one of the biggest fundraising rounds in the history of the private space industry. According to CNBC, Jeff Bezos' rocket company is looking to raise around $10 billion, valuing the company at approximately $130 billion. It will be the first time Blue Origin has accepted large-scale outside investment after years of relying mainly on funding from Bezos himself. The move is significant because it gives investors a rare opportunity to back one of the world's largest private space companies. The fundraising also comes only weeks after SpaceX completed a record-breaking IPO, adding fresh momentum to the commercial space industry. How is the funding round structured? According to people familiar with the discussions, Bezos is expected to invest $2 billion of his own money in the round. Investment firm Coatue Management is reportedly set to contribute about $4 billion, while the remaining $4 billion is expected to come from several institutional investors. CNBC reported that demand for the remaining allocation has been strong. If completed, the deal would value Blue Origin among the world's most valuable privately controlled aerospace companies. Why is Blue Origin raising money now? For years, Bezos funded Blue Origin largely through personal wealth, including proceeds from selling Amazon shares. However, developing reusable rockets, lunar landers and future space infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital. Bringing in outside investors gives the company greater financial flexibility while reducing its dependence on Bezos alone. In an interview with CNBC in May, Bezos said it was "a good time" to consider external investment as the company enters its next phase of growth. What does it mean for the space industry? The fundraising reflects growing investor confidence in the commercial space sector. Blue Origin is developing launch vehicles such as New Glenn, while also working on lunar exploration projects, satellite launch services and long-term space infrastructure. The timing is notable. SpaceX's recent IPO demonstrated that investors are willing to place massive bets on commercial space companies. Blue Origin's fundraising suggests competition between Bezos and Elon Musk is expanding beyond rockets into financial markets. If the round closes as expected, Blue Origin will have billions of dollars to accelerate development of future launch systems and compete more aggressively in an industry expected to grow rapidly over the coming decade.

Blue Origin is reportedly raising $10 billion in its first outside funding round, valuing the company at $130 billion. Jeff Bezos is expected to invest $2 billion as the space company looks to expand after SpaceX's record-breaking IPO.

Blue Origin's first funding round signals a new chapter in the space race

Buying a new car in the European Union now comes with several new safety technologies as standard. From 7 July 2026, all newly registered passenger cars and vans must include a wider range of advanced driver assistance systems under the EU's updated General Safety Regulation (GSR).The new rules are designed to reduce road accidents by helping drivers avoid collisions, stay focused and better protect pedestrians and cyclists. They also move many safety features that were once found only in premium vehicles into the mainstream.<h2>What safety features are now mandatory?</h2>Under the latest rules, new vehicles must include several technologies, including:Advanced emergency braking capable of detecting pedestrians and cyclistsDriver distraction and attention monitoringImproved direct visibility for driversEnhanced pedestrian protectionUpdated safety glass requirementsImproved tyre safety standards for worn tyresSome vehicles may also include infrared driver-monitoring cameras that detect signs of distraction or fatigue and alert the driver when attention drops.<h2>The European Union introduced these rules</h2>Human error remains one of the biggest causes of road accidents. The European Union believes technologies such as automatic emergency braking and driver monitoring can help prevent crashes before they happen.The broader General Safety Regulation was introduced in phases to improve road safety and support the EU's long-term Vision Zero goal of eliminating road deaths by 2050. According to the RAC, the regulation could help save more than 25,000 lives and prevent at least 140,000 serious injuries over the coming years.<h2>What does it mean for buyers?</h2>For most buyers, these features will now be included as standard rather than offered as optional extras. That could improve safety across all price segments, although some drivers have raised concerns about privacy, particularly over in-car cameras that monitor attention. Car manufacturers have largely been preparing for these requirements for several years, meaning many newer models already include much of the required technology. However, from now on, every newly registered passenger car and van covered by the regulation must comply with the updated safety standards before it can be sold in the EU.

The European Union has made a new set of vehicle safety features mandatory for all newly registered passenger cars and vans from 7 July 2026. The measures include advanced emergency braking, driver monitoring and pedestrian protection to improve road safety.

Buying a new car in the European Union now comes with several new safety technologies as standard. From 7 July 2026, all newly registered passenger cars and vans must include a wider range of advanced driver assistance systems under the EU's updated General Safety Regulation (GSR). The new rules are designed to reduce road accidents by helping drivers avoid collisions, stay focused and better protect pedestrians and cyclists. They also move many safety features that were once found only in premium vehicles into the mainstream. What safety features are now mandatory? Under the latest rules, new vehicles must include several technologies, including: Advanced emergency braking capable of detecting pedestrians and cyclists Driver distraction and attention monitoring Improved direct visibility for drivers Enhanced pedestrian protection Updated safety glass requirements Improved tyre safety standards for worn tyres Some vehicles may also include infrared driver-monitoring cameras that detect signs of distraction or fatigue and alert the driver when attention drops. The European Union introduced these rules Human error remains one of the biggest causes of road accidents. The European Union believes technologies such as automatic emergency braking and driver monitoring can help prevent crashes before they happen. The broader General Safety Regulation was introduced in phases to improve road safety and support the EU's long-term Vision Zero goal of eliminating road deaths by 2050. According to the RAC, the regulation could help save more than 25,000 lives and prevent at least 140,000 serious injuries over the coming years. What does it mean for buyers? For most buyers, these features will now be included as standard rather than offered as optional extras. That could improve safety across all price segments, although some drivers have raised concerns about privacy, particularly over in-car cameras that monitor attention. Car manufacturers have largely been preparing for these requirements for several years, meaning many newer models already include much of the required technology. However, from now on, every newly registered passenger car and van covered by the regulation must comply with the updated safety standards before it can be sold in the EU.

The European Union has made a new set of vehicle safety features mandatory for all newly registered passenger cars and vans from 7 July 2026. The measures include advanced emergency braking, driver monitoring and pedestrian protection to improve road safety.

From driver monitoring to emergency braking: EU introduces new car safety rules

Apple has announced a new long-term agreement with Broadcom that is expected to be worth more than $30 billion, making it the company's largest commitment under its American Manufacturing Program (AMP).The deal will see Broadcom expand production of advanced semiconductor components in Fort Collins, Colorado, while supplying Apple with more than 15 billion US-made chips. According to Apple, the investment will also support hundreds of American jobs and strengthen domestic manufacturing. The announcement comes as major technology companies continue investing heavily in local supply chains amid growing demand for advanced chips.<h2>What will Broadcom manufacture?</h2>Under the agreement, Broadcom will invest $1.5 billion to modernise and expand its manufacturing facility in Colorado.The plant will produce advanced FBAR (Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator) filters, which help smartphones maintain reliable wireless signals by filtering unwanted radio frequencies. Broadcom will also manufacture Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other networking components used across Apple's product range. These chips are found in devices including the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and AirPods, where they play an important role in wireless connectivity.<h2>&nbsp;$600 billion investment in the United States</h2>The agreement forms part of Apple's broader pledge to invest $600 billion in the United States over four years. Rather than focusing only on processors, the latest partnership strengthens Apple's supply chain for communication and connectivity chips that are essential for modern consumer electronics.A bigger push for US manufacturingGovernments worldwide have encouraged companies to build more semiconductor capacity closer to home after recent supply chain disruptions highlighted the risks of relying heavily on overseas production. For Apple, expanding partnerships with US suppliers such as Broadcom helps diversify manufacturing while supporting domestic chip production.Although Apple continues to source components globally, the latest investment signals that US manufacturing is becoming an increasingly important part of the company's long-term supply strategy. The agreement also highlights how advanced semiconductor manufacturing remains central to the next generation of smartphones, wearables and connected devices.

Apple has signed a chip agreement worth more than $30 billion with Broadcom to expand US manufacturing. The partnership will produce over 15 billion chips, support hundreds of jobs and strengthen Apple's domestic supply chain as demand for advanced semiconductors continues to grow.

Apple has announced a new long-term agreement with Broadcom that is expected to be worth more than $30 billion, making it the company's largest commitment under its American Manufacturing Program (AMP). The deal will see Broadcom expand production of advanced semiconductor components in Fort Collins, Colorado, while supplying Apple with more than 15 billion US-made chips. According to Apple, the investment will also support hundreds of American jobs and strengthen domestic manufacturing. The announcement comes as major technology companies continue investing heavily in local supply chains amid growing demand for advanced chips. What will Broadcom manufacture? Under the agreement, Broadcom will invest $1.5 billion to modernise and expand its manufacturing facility in Colorado. The plant will produce advanced FBAR (Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator) filters, which help smartphones maintain reliable wireless signals by filtering unwanted radio frequencies. Broadcom will also manufacture Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other networking components used across Apple's product range. These chips are found in devices including the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and AirPods, where they play an important role in wireless connectivity. $600 billion investment in the United States The agreement forms part of Apple's broader pledge to invest $600 billion in the United States over four years. Rather than focusing only on processors, the latest partnership strengthens Apple's supply chain for communication and connectivity chips that are essential for modern consumer electronics. A bigger push for US manufacturing Governments worldwide have encouraged companies to build more semiconductor capacity closer to home after recent supply chain disruptions highlighted the risks of relying heavily on overseas production. For Apple, expanding partnerships with US suppliers such as Broadcom helps diversify manufacturing while supporting domestic chip production. Although Apple continues to source components globally, the latest investment signals that US manufacturing is becoming an increasingly important part of the company's long-term supply strategy. The agreement also highlights how advanced semiconductor manufacturing remains central to the next generation of smartphones, wearables and connected devices.

Apple has signed a chip agreement worth more than $30 billion with Broadcom to expand US manufacturing. The partnership will produce over 15 billion chips, support hundreds of jobs and strengthen Apple's domestic supply chain as demand for advanced semiconductors continues to grow.

Apple bets big on US chip production with new Broadcom agreement

The race to build more powerful artificial intelligence models is about to get even more competitive. Elon Musk has announced that Grok 4.5 will be released to the public tomorrow after completing private beta testing.In a post on X, Musk said the launch follows "strong positive feedback" from users in the beta programme. He described Grok 4.5 as an "Opus-class" model, comparing it with Anthropic's Claude family of AI models, while claiming it is faster, more token-efficient and cheaper to run.The announcement comes as AI companies continue to compete on speed, reasoning ability and operating costs rather than simply building larger models.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Based on strong positive feedback from customers in our beta test program, <a href="https://x.com/SpaceXAI?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpaceXAI</a> will make Grok 4.5 available to the public tomorrow. It is an Opus-class model, but faster, more token-efficient and lower cost.&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2074740539874775163?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>What is new in Grok 4.5?</h2> According to Musk, Grok 4.5 is built on SpaceXAI's new 1.5 trillion-parameter V9 foundation model, making it one of the company's most advanced AI systems. Earlier this month, Musk said the model had entered private beta testing at SpaceX and Tesla, where engineers tested its coding, reasoning and general-purpose capabilities before a wider rollout.Although SpaceXAI has not released detailed benchmark results, Musk claims the new model delivers better performance while using fewer computing resources, making it cheaper to operate than previous versions.<h2>Why is this launch important?</h2>The AI industry is becoming increasingly competitive, Over the past few months, companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta have all released more capable AI models with improved reasoning and coding abilities.Instead of focusing only on raw performance, developers are now trying to make models more efficient. Lower computing costs allow companies to serve more users while reducing the expensive infrastructure needed to run advanced AI systems. If Musk's claims prove accurate, Grok 4.5 could strengthen SpaceXAI's position in the rapidly growing AI market.<h2>Competition continues to intensify</h2>SpaceXAI, formerly known as xAI, has expanded rapidly since becoming part of SpaceX earlier this year. The company has continued updating its flagship Grok family, with Grok 4.3 launching in April and Grok 4.5 arriving just a few months later. Reuters also reported that SpaceXAI is working with AI coding platform Cursor as it expands its enterprise ambitions beyond consumer chatbots. With Grok 4.5 now ready for public release, the latest launch adds another major competitor to an AI market already dominated by ChatGPT, Claude and Google's Gemini. Whether Grok 4.5 can match Musk's promises will become clearer once users begin testing the model after its public rollout.

Elon Musk has announced that Grok 4.5 will be released to the public tomorrow after private beta testing. The latest AI model is expected to offer faster performance, improved efficiency and lower operating costs as competition among leading AI companies continues to grow.

The race to build more powerful artificial intelligence models is about to get even more competitive. Elon Musk has announced that Grok 4.5 will be released to the public tomorrow after completing private beta testing. In a post on X, Musk said the launch follows "strong positive feedback" from users in the beta programme. He described Grok 4.5 as an "Opus-class" model, comparing it with Anthropic's Claude family of AI models, while claiming it is faster, more token-efficient and cheaper to run. The announcement comes as AI companies continue to compete on speed, reasoning ability and operating costs rather than simply building larger models.

Elon Musk has announced that Grok 4.5 will be released to the public tomorrow after private beta testing. The latest AI model is expected to offer faster performance, improved efficiency and lower operating costs as competition among leading AI companies continues to grow.

Elon Musk calls Grok 4.5 an 'Opus-class' AI model. Here's what that means

The Canadian province of British Columbia is preparing legal action against OpenAI over the February 10 mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, which left eight people dead. This is one of the first and landmark cases attempting to link an Artificial Intelligence company with a mass murder. The lawsuit will test the limits of AI prompting and answers when it comes to issues of crime, violence and self-destruction.<h2>What happened in Tumbler Ridge and why is OpenAI facing allegations?</h2>In the small northern community of Tumbler Ridge, Jesse Van Rootselaar killed her mother and brother at home, then five students and an educational assistant at the local secondary school, before killing herself. &nbsp;British Columbia Attorney General Niki Sharma's office said internal OpenAI reports showed its safety teams had flagged the shooter's violent ChatGPT prompts months before the attack, yet the company leadership did not notify police. OpenAI had banned an account linked to Van Rootselaar in June 2025, roughly eight months before the BC shooting, but said the content did not show evidence of an imminent attack, according to AFP.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/many-killed-including-shooter-killed-in-canada-school-shooting-multiple-injured-what-we-know-so-far-1770777892132">Mass shooting in Canada's British Columbia: 8, including shooter, killed in school, 2 found dead at home - What we know so far</a><h2>British Columbia mass shooting case: The core allegation against OpenAI</h2>OpenAI is facing multiple lawsuits over the shooting, many alleging that its AI models, particularly the popular ChatGPT, did not have enough guardrails to stop answering or encouraging questions to it with intent for murder or suicide. Before the British Colombia lawsuit, the families of seven victims filed their own cases in California three months earlier. Their lawyers said 12 OpenAI employees urged the company to alert police. They alleged that OpenAI stayed silent because "reporting one case would mean reporting thousands", according to the lawsuit."We will pursue every available avenue to hold OpenAI and its decision-makers accountable," BC Attorney General Sharma said in a statement issued by her office.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/montreal-shooter-s-104-page-manifesto-reveals-his-hate-for-women-and-capitalism-1782190057542">Montreal shooter's 104-page manifesto reveals his hate for women and capitalism</a>&nbsp;<h2>An apology from OpenAI CEO over the British Columbia shooting</h2>In April, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman published an apology letter in the local newspaper, saying he was "deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement" about the banned account. The company said it has strengthened its safeguards and maintains a zero-tolerance policy on the use of its tools for violence. It also said that, under guidelines updated after June 2025, the account would have been reported to law enforcement.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/canada-school-shooter-transgender-jesse-van-rootselaar-mother-jennifer-strang-1770865781929">Canada school shooter, Jesse Van Rootselaar, killed own mother who once called to end trans hate</a><h2>What comes next in the British Columbia mass shooting case against OpenAI?</h2>The province will seek damages, including the cost of building a new school. Jon Festinger of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Peter A. Allard School of Law said it would be a difficult claim, as BC would have to establish a direct causal link between OpenAI's conduct and the tragedy. The government "must be satisfying themselves that there's a sufficient causal chain", the Narcity website cited him as saying.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/canada-shooting-at-least-10-dead-in-shootings-at-schools-house-1770788190832/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/canada-shooting-at-least-10-dead-in-shootings-at-schools-house-1770788190832/embed</a>British Columbia has pioneered similar litigation in the past. It successfully pursued legal action against tobacco companies, and its opioid lawsuit recently cleared key legal hurdles. The Canadian federal government has pledged C$200 million for a new high school and healthcare upgrades in Tumbler Ridge. A coroner's inquest will examine the deaths, as no criminal trial will take place because the alleged perpetrator is deceased, The Globe and Mail reported.

British Columbia is preparing legal action against OpenAI over the Tumbler Ridge mass shooting. The suit alleges that the AI firm failed to alert police despite ChatGPT prompts linked to the shooter being flagged. This is a landmark case. Here is why

The Canadian province of British Columbia is preparing legal action against OpenAI over the February 10 mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, which left eight people dead. This is one of the first and landmark cases attempting to link an Artificial Intelligence company with a mass murder. The lawsuit will test the limits of AI prompting and answers when it comes to issues of crime, violence and self-destruction. What happened in Tumbler Ridge and why is OpenAI facing allegations? In the small northern community of Tumbler Ridge, Jesse Van Rootselaar killed her mother and brother at home, then five students and an educational assistant at the local secondary school, before killing herself. British Columbia Attorney General Niki Sharma's office said internal OpenAI reports showed its safety teams had flagged the shooter's violent ChatGPT prompts months before the attack, yet the company leadership did not notify police. OpenAI had banned an account linked to Van Rootselaar in June 2025, roughly eight months before the BC shooting, but said the content did not show evidence of an imminent attack, according to AFP. Also read: Mass shooting in Canada's British Columbia: 8, including shooter, killed in school, 2 found dead at home - What we know so far British Columbia mass shooting case: The core allegation against OpenAI OpenAI is facing multiple lawsuits over the shooting, many alleging that its AI models, particularly the popular ChatGPT, did not have enough guardrails to stop answering or encouraging questions to it with intent for murder or suicide. Before the British Colombia lawsuit, the families of seven victims filed their own cases in California three months earlier. Their lawyers said 12 OpenAI employees urged the company to alert police. They alleged that OpenAI stayed silent because "reporting one case would mean reporting thousands", according to the lawsuit. "We will pursue every available avenue to hold OpenAI and its decision-makers accountable," BC Attorney General Sharma said in a statement issued by her office. Also read: Montreal shooter's 104-page manifesto reveals his hate for women and capitalism An apology from OpenAI CEO over the British Columbia shooting In April, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman published an apology letter in the local newspaper, saying he was "deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement" about the banned account. The company said it has strengthened its safeguards and maintains a zero-tolerance policy on the use of its tools for violence. It also said that, under guidelines updated after June 2025, the account would have been reported to law enforcement. Also read: Canada school shooter, Jesse Van Rootselaar, killed own mother who once called to end trans hate What comes next in the British Columbia mass shooting case against OpenAI? The province will seek damages, including the cost of building a new school. Jon Festinger of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Peter A. Allard School of Law said it would be a difficult claim, as BC would have to establish a direct causal link between OpenAI's conduct and the tragedy. The government "must be satisfying themselves that there's a sufficient causal chain", the Narcity website cited him as saying. https://www.wionews.com/videos/canada-shooting-at-least-10-dead-in-shootings-at-schools-house-1770788190832/embed British Columbia has pioneered similar litigation in the past. It successfully pursued legal action against tobacco companies, and its opioid lawsuit recently cleared key legal hurdles. The Canadian federal government has pledged C$200 million for a new high school and healthcare upgrades in Tumbler Ridge. A coroner's inquest will examine the deaths, as no criminal trial will take place because the alleged perpetrator is deceased, The Globe and Mail reported.

British Columbia is preparing legal action against OpenAI over the Tumbler Ridge mass shooting. The suit alleges that the AI firm failed to alert police despite ChatGPT prompts linked to the shooter being flagged. This is a landmark case. Here is why

AI and mass murder: Why British Columbia's lawsuit against OpenAI over the Tumbler Ridge shooting matters

Meta launched its first in-house AI image generation model — called Muse Image — on July 7, 2026. The announcement was framed as a creative milestone for Meta's Superintelligence Labs. What the press release did not lead with is the detail that matters most to ordinary users: if your Instagram account is public, anyone on the internet can now type your @username into an AI prompt and generate a new image of your face. You will not be asked. You will not be told. It happens by default, invisibly, and without your knowledge.&nbsp;How The Feature Actually Works&nbsp;Muse Image is integrated directly into Meta AI, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The mechanism is straightforward and alarming: a user types a prompt into the AI image generator and includes an @mention of any public Instagram account. Meta's system automatically retrieves photos from that profile and uses them as visual references to generate a new AI image that incorporates that person's likeness. The owner of the account being used receives no notification. There is no approval step. No consent is requested. The image is generated, and the subject of it — whose face has just been used by a stranger — has no way of knowing.&nbsp;You Are Opted In By Default&nbsp;Meta's own help centre confirms the default state explicitly: ‘If your account is public and on default settings, people may be able to create content with your Instagram content using AI features at Meta.’ The company did not send push notifications to users explaining this change. It did not require users to actively agree to having their likeness used for AI generation. It activated the feature for all public accounts and put the burden of opting out on individuals who discover it themselves, which is exactly how Meta has handled every controversial privacy change in its history.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meta in a statement to WION said, "You have control over how your content can be tagged for AI creation with an easy setting to turn this feature off at any time." The company added: "We've updated the Settings on Instagram to clarify that when you allow others to reuse your public content in features like remix, that also lets people create with your Instagram content using AI products at Meta. You can opt out by toggling this reuse setting off." Meta's help page with full opt-out instructions is available at help.instagram.com.&nbsp;You Will Not Be Notified When It Happens&nbsp;Perhaps the most disturbing detail is buried in Meta's own support documentation: ‘You will not be notified about content created using AI features at Meta.’ This means someone could be generating AI images of your face right now. They could be generating dozens of them. They could be sharing them. You would have no way of knowing unless the images surfaced somewhere you happened to see them. There is no log, no alert, no record sent to the account whose likeness was used. The subject of the AI generation is the last person to know.&nbsp;What Kind Of Images Can Be Created?&nbsp;Meta describes Muse Image as capable of following instructions faithfully while drawing from multiple visual references. That description leaves the use cases almost entirely open. A user could generate a realistic-looking image of a colleague, a classmate, an ex-partner, a public figure, or a stranger — using nothing more than their public Instagram photos and a text prompt. The technology is not restricted to benign creative uses. The only constraints are Meta's content policies, which are enforced after generation, not before — and which have historically been inconsistent at scale.&nbsp;How To Opt Out — Do It Now&nbsp;The opt-out process is buried inside Instagram's settings. Open Instagram and go to your profile. Tap the three horizontal lines in the top-right corner to open the menu. Scroll down and tap Settings. Find the section labelled Sharing and Reuse. Under the heading ‘Allow people to use your content on Instagram and with AI features on Meta’, toggle off both Posts and Reels. This disables future AI generation using your photos. There is one critical caveat: opting out does not delete images that have already been created using your likeness. If someone generated AI images of you before you found this setting, those images are not removed.&nbsp;The Privacy Calculation Meta Made&nbsp;Meta's decision to default all public accounts into this feature rather than asking for opt-in consent is not an oversight. It is a deliberate product and policy choice. Opt-in consent would produce a much smaller pool of available likeness data. Opt-out defaults produce the maximum possible dataset. The company is aware of the reputational risk — it is currently facing $1.4 trillion in penalties in a separate teen mental health case — and proceeded anyway. For users with public Instagram accounts, the message from Meta is simple: your face is a creative resource for anyone who wants to use it, unless you specifically go into a sub-menu and turn it off yourself.&nbsp;What This Means For Everyone With A Public Account&nbsp;The people most immediately at risk from this feature are not celebrities. Celebrities have teams, legal resources, and public platforms to push back. The people most at risk are ordinary users — young adults, students, professionals — who posted publicly on Instagram because that is what the platform encouraged, without understanding that their photos would one day become training data and generation references for an AI system that strangers can access freely. If your account is public, check that setting today. Meta is not going to check it for you.

Meta's Muse Image lets anyone @-mention your public Instagram to generate AI images of your face. You're opted in by default. No notification is sent. Here's how to turn it off immediately.

Meta launched its first in-house AI image generation model — called Muse Image — on July 7, 2026. The announcement was framed as a creative milestone for Meta's Superintelligence Labs. What the press release did not lead with is the detail that matters most to ordinary users: if your Instagram account is public, anyone on the internet can now type your @username into an AI prompt and generate a new image of your face. You will not be asked. You will not be told. It happens by default, invisibly, and without your knowledge. How The Feature Actually Works Muse Image is integrated directly into Meta AI, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The mechanism is straightforward and alarming: a user types a prompt into the AI image generator and includes an @mention of any public Instagram account. Meta's system automatically retrieves photos from that profile and uses them as visual references to generate a new AI image that incorporates that person's likeness. The owner of the account being used receives no notification. There is no approval step. No consent is requested. The image is generated, and the subject of it — whose face has just been used by a stranger — has no way of knowing. You Are Opted In By Default Meta's own help centre confirms the default state explicitly: ‘If your account is public and on default settings, people may be able to create content with your Instagram content using AI features at Meta.’ The company did not send push notifications to users explaining this change. It did not require users to actively agree to having their likeness used for AI generation. It activated the feature for all public accounts and put the burden of opting out on individuals who discover it themselves, which is exactly how Meta has handled every controversial privacy change in its history. Meta in a statement to WION said, "You have control over how your content can be tagged for AI creation with an easy setting to turn this feature off at any time." The company added: "We've updated the Settings on Instagram to clarify that when you allow others to reuse your public content in features like remix, that also lets people create with your Instagram content using AI products at Meta. You can opt out by toggling this reuse setting off." Meta's help page with full opt-out instructions is available at help.instagram.com. You Will Not Be Notified When It Happens Perhaps the most disturbing detail is buried in Meta's own support documentation: ‘You will not be notified about content created using AI features at Meta.’ This means someone could be generating AI images of your face right now. They could be generating dozens of them. They could be sharing them. You would have no way of knowing unless the images surfaced somewhere you happened to see them. There is no log, no alert, no record sent to the account whose likeness was used. The subject of the AI generation is the last person to know. What Kind Of Images Can Be Created? Meta describes Muse Image as capable of following instructions faithfully while drawing from multiple visual references. That description leaves the use cases almost entirely open. A user could generate a realistic-looking image of a colleague, a classmate, an ex-partner, a public figure, or a stranger — using nothing more than their public Instagram photos and a text prompt. The technology is not restricted to benign creative uses. The only constraints are Meta's content policies, which are enforced after generation, not before — and which have historically been inconsistent at scale. How To Opt Out — Do It Now The opt-out process is buried inside Instagram's settings. Open Instagram and go to your profile. Tap the three horizontal lines in the top-right corner to open the menu. Scroll down and tap Settings. Find the section labelled Sharing and Reuse. Under the heading ‘Allow people to use your content on Instagram and with AI features on Meta’, toggle off both Posts and Reels. This disables future AI generation using your photos. There is one critical caveat: opting out does not delete images that have already been created using your likeness. If someone generated AI images of you before you found this setting, those images are not removed. The Privacy Calculation Meta Made Meta's decision to default all public accounts into this feature rather than asking for opt-in consent is not an oversight. It is a deliberate product and policy choice. Opt-in consent would produce a much smaller pool of available likeness data. Opt-out defaults produce the maximum possible dataset. The company is aware of the reputational risk — it is currently facing $1.4 trillion in penalties in a separate teen mental health case — and proceeded anyway. For users with public Instagram accounts, the message from Meta is simple: your face is a creative resource for anyone who wants to use it, unless you specifically go into a sub-menu and turn it off yourself. What This Means For Everyone With A Public Account The people most immediately at risk from this feature are not celebrities. Celebrities have teams, legal resources, and public platforms to push back. The people most at risk are ordinary users — young adults, students, professionals — who posted publicly on Instagram because that is what the platform encouraged, without understanding that their photos would one day become training data and generation references for an AI system that strangers can access freely. If your account is public, check that setting today. Meta is not going to check it for you.

Meta launched a new AI image model called Muse Image on July 7, 2026. If your Instagram account is public, strangers can now @-mention your profile in an AI prompt and Meta will pull your photos to generate new images of your face — without your consent, without notifying you, and without any way for you to know it happened. You are opted in by default. Here is what the feature does, why it is dangerous, and exactly how to turn it off.

Instagram will now let anyone generate deepfake of your face, unless you opt out right now

The number is almost too large to process: $1.4 trillion. That is how much four US states are seeking in penalties from Meta Platforms in a trial scheduled for August 2026. To put it in context, Meta's entire market capitalisation — the total value of every share of the company — is approximately $1.5 trillion. The penalty being sought by California, New Jersey, Colorado, and Kentucky is not a fine. It is a demand that amounts to virtually erasing the company from existence.&nbsp;What The Four States Are Accusing Meta Of&nbsp;The four-state lawsuit centres on a specific and damning claim: that Meta deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook with addictive features it knew were harmful to teenagers, then misled the public about what it knew. The accusation is not that social media happened to be addictive. It is that Meta's engineers built in the addiction by design — the infinite scroll, the variable reward of likes and notifications, the algorithmic amplification of emotionally triggering content — and that executives knew the psychological damage this was causing to young users and hid it.&nbsp;How $1.4 Trillion Was Calculated&nbsp;The penalty figure is not arbitrary. It was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of violations — roughly equivalent to the number of young users affected by Meta's addictive design choices — by the fine amounts designated under each state's consumer protection law. In other words, each child affected counts as a separate violation. Across millions of young users in four states, that multiplication produces a number that exceeds the GDP of most countries. Meta attorneys have described the calculation as ‘unsupported by the evidence’ and noted that ‘Meta has not found any case, under any cause of action, where one defendant was ordered to pay over one trillion dollars’ — or anything remotely close.&nbsp;The Broader War: 33 States, 3,000 Cases&nbsp;The four-state case is only part of a much larger legal assault. A total of 33 states have joined together in a separate but related lawsuit alleging that Meta exploited young users and collected data from children without parental consent in violation of federal law. In California alone, Meta faces over 3,000 individual cases making similar addiction and harm claims. Fourteen additional states are pursuing comparable claims. The August trial is the most consequential single proceeding, but it is not the only front on which Meta is fighting.&nbsp;The New Mexico Verdict: A Warning Shot That Was Already Fired&nbsp;This is not the first time a court has found against Meta on children's safety issues. In March 2026, a New Mexico jury determined that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms. The jury found thousands of individual violations and imposed a $375 million penalty — the first time a US state successfully sued Meta over child safety. A separate judge also held Meta and Google jointly liable and ordered $6 million in damages in an individual case involving a young woman who alleged that deliberately addictive design features on Instagram got her hooked from a young age.&nbsp;The Judge Who Refused To Let Meta Walk Away&nbsp;US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland rejected Meta's motion to have the addiction claims dismissed before trial. That ruling kept the August proceeding alive and cleared the way for the $1.4 trillion penalty demand to be argued before a jury. Meta had hoped to end the case before it reached that point. It did not. Judge Gonzalez Rogers' decision to let the trial proceed is what transformed this from a manageable legal risk into what Gizmodo called an ‘existential threat.’&nbsp;What Happens To Meta If It Loses&nbsp;If a jury finds in favour of the four states and awards penalties anywhere near the $1.4 trillion being sought, the consequences for Meta would be unlike anything in corporate history. The company's entire market value would not cover the judgment. A penalty of that scale would trigger immediate financial crisis — capital raises, asset sales, potential restructuring. Meta has already warned investors in filings that it anticipates ‘material losses’ from youth-related litigation in 2026. That is the sanitised corporate language for: this is going to cost us seriously.&nbsp;Zuckerberg's Position And Meta's Defence&nbsp;Mark Zuckerberg has not commented publicly on the $1.4 trillion demand. Meta's legal team has been emphatic that the figure has ‘no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement’ and that a sanction of that size would be constitutionally disproportionate. The company's defence is expected to argue that social media's effects on teen mental health are complex, disputed by research, and not the direct result of intentional harmful design. Whether that argument survives contact with a jury — in a political and cultural environment where teen mental health has become one of the most charged issues in American public life — is the $1.4 trillion question.

Four US states seek $1.4 trillion from Meta — nearly its entire $1.5T market cap. Trial set for August 2026. Meta calls it unprecedented. Analysts call it existential. Here is what happens if Meta loses.

The number is almost too large to process: $1.4 trillion. That is how much four US states are seeking in penalties from Meta Platforms in a trial scheduled for August 2026. To put it in context, Meta's entire market capitalisation — the total value of every share of the company — is approximately $1.5 trillion. The penalty being sought by California, New Jersey, Colorado, and Kentucky is not a fine. It is a demand that amounts to virtually erasing the company from existence. What The Four States Are Accusing Meta Of The four-state lawsuit centres on a specific and damning claim: that Meta deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook with addictive features it knew were harmful to teenagers, then misled the public about what it knew. The accusation is not that social media happened to be addictive. It is that Meta's engineers built in the addiction by design — the infinite scroll, the variable reward of likes and notifications, the algorithmic amplification of emotionally triggering content — and that executives knew the psychological damage this was causing to young users and hid it. How $1.4 Trillion Was Calculated The penalty figure is not arbitrary. It was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of violations — roughly equivalent to the number of young users affected by Meta's addictive design choices — by the fine amounts designated under each state's consumer protection law. In other words, each child affected counts as a separate violation. Across millions of young users in four states, that multiplication produces a number that exceeds the GDP of most countries. Meta attorneys have described the calculation as ‘unsupported by the evidence’ and noted that ‘Meta has not found any case, under any cause of action, where one defendant was ordered to pay over one trillion dollars’ — or anything remotely close. The Broader War: 33 States, 3,000 Cases The four-state case is only part of a much larger legal assault. A total of 33 states have joined together in a separate but related lawsuit alleging that Meta exploited young users and collected data from children without parental consent in violation of federal law. In California alone, Meta faces over 3,000 individual cases making similar addiction and harm claims. Fourteen additional states are pursuing comparable claims. The August trial is the most consequential single proceeding, but it is not the only front on which Meta is fighting. The New Mexico Verdict: A Warning Shot That Was Already Fired This is not the first time a court has found against Meta on children's safety issues. In March 2026, a New Mexico jury determined that Meta knowingly harmed children's mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms. The jury found thousands of individual violations and imposed a $375 million penalty — the first time a US state successfully sued Meta over child safety. A separate judge also held Meta and Google jointly liable and ordered $6 million in damages in an individual case involving a young woman who alleged that deliberately addictive design features on Instagram got her hooked from a young age. The Judge Who Refused To Let Meta Walk Away US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland rejected Meta's motion to have the addiction claims dismissed before trial. That ruling kept the August proceeding alive and cleared the way for the $1.4 trillion penalty demand to be argued before a jury. Meta had hoped to end the case before it reached that point. It did not. Judge Gonzalez Rogers' decision to let the trial proceed is what transformed this from a manageable legal risk into what Gizmodo called an ‘existential threat.’ What Happens To Meta If It Loses If a jury finds in favour of the four states and awards penalties anywhere near the $1.4 trillion being sought, the consequences for Meta would be unlike anything in corporate history. The company's entire market value would not cover the judgment. A penalty of that scale would trigger immediate financial crisis — capital raises, asset sales, potential restructuring. Meta has already warned investors in filings that it anticipates ‘material losses’ from youth-related litigation in 2026. That is the sanitised corporate language for: this is going to cost us seriously. Zuckerberg's Position And Meta's Defence Mark Zuckerberg has not commented publicly on the $1.4 trillion demand. Meta's legal team has been emphatic that the figure has ‘no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement’ and that a sanction of that size would be constitutionally disproportionate. The company's defence is expected to argue that social media's effects on teen mental health are complex, disputed by research, and not the direct result of intentional harmful design. Whether that argument survives contact with a jury — in a political and cultural environment where teen mental health has become one of the most charged issues in American public life — is the $1.4 trillion question.

Four US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties against Meta — a figure that nearly matches the company's entire market capitalisation of $1.5 trillion. The August 2026 trial in Oakland, California will determine whether Meta's intentional design of addictive features on Instagram and Facebook constitutes a consumer protection violation affecting millions of children. Meta calls the demand ‘unprecedented in the history of consumer protection enforcement.’ Analysts call it an existential threat.

Zuckerberg to go bankrupt? Meta faces $1.4 Trillion in penalties in teen mental health trial

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is using Anthropic's AI model Mythos to audit government software, Reuters has reported, citing three people familiar with the matter. This is interesting given the tussles between the Trump administration and Anthropic, the firm behind the popular Claude AI models. CISA is using Mythos to scan government code repositories for bugs that could leave the door open for foreign spies and cybercriminals, according to the report.<h2>Why is the US government using Anthropic's coding agent significant? The political irony</h2>It's interesting that the agency is using the controversial Mythos, not the regular Claude model for the audit, as per the report. Mythos has demonstrated the ability to find, exploit and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including those in the financial and banking sectors. Upon its release, Mythos was immediately restricted for use only by approved organisations. The political irony is not lost on anyone. Just three months ago, the Pentagon had slapped Anthropic with a supply-chain risk designation. A judge later blocked the blacklisting in March. Mythos has not yet been released to the public.Axios, meanwhile, had reported that the US intelligence agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), had been using Mythos as of April despite the blacklist. The New York Times reported in late June that NSA analysts testing it in classified settings were impressed by its performance.In short, the US security establishment is quietly embracing the very company that the Trump administration had tried to blacklist.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/they-showed-us-what-it-could-do-and-it-s-scary-congressman-andrew-garbarino-on-anthropic-mythos-model-demo-claude-ai-news-1782552364247">'They showed us what it could do, and it's scary': Congressman on Anthropic Mythos model demo</a><h2>Which websites are included for Anthropic code-checking?</h2>The Reuters report said the Anthropic AI model would be used for auditing government code repositories, not websites as such. The task is being carried out by CISA's Attack Surface Evaluation (ASE) team, which conducts digital security assessments and authorised hacking exercises across government systems. It is not clear exactly how much government code the team has reviewed or the nature and severity of the vulnerabilities it has discovered. Nor have CISA or Anthropic disclosed which government departments or websites are included in the programme.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-lifts-export-curbs-on-anthropic-s-fable-and-mythos-ai-models-1782909734073/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-lifts-export-curbs-on-anthropic-s-fable-and-mythos-ai-models-1782909734073/embed</a><h2>Finance, business and economy relevance</h2>The ASE team works across the federal government. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that systems operated by the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Commerce could potentially fall within the scope of these audits, although the Reuters story does not specifically mention any of these agencies. Notably, in February, the Treasury, State and Health and Human Services Departments issued statements confirming compliance with the government directive at the time to phase out Anthropic tools following government order.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/from-mythos-to-reality-anthropic-launches-claude-fable-5-its-most-powerful-public-ai-model-1781035985872">From Mythos to reality: Anthropic launches Claude Fable 5, its most powerful public AI model</a><h2>Is the US government admitting that its code needs fixing?</h2>The sources cited by Reuters said the audits had already uncovered a large number of vulnerabilities. However, this should not be interpreted as an admission that government software is fundamentally broken. Large organisations routinely conduct code audits because legacy software, outdated libraries and coding errors inevitably accumulate over time. AI is now making it significantly easier to identify bugs and security vulnerabilities in large volumes of legacy code at scale, allowing agencies to fix weaknesses before they can be exploited by foreign adversaries or cybercriminals.

CISA, the US cybersecurity agency, is using Anthropic's unreleased Mythos AI to audit US government code repositories for cybersecurity flaws. This is a major shift in federal AI adoption despite earlier Trump-era restrictions against Anthropic.

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is using Anthropic's AI model Mythos to audit government software, Reuters has reported, citing three people familiar with the matter. This is interesting given the tussles between the Trump administration and Anthropic, the firm behind the popular Claude AI models. CISA is using Mythos to scan government code repositories for bugs that could leave the door open for foreign spies and cybercriminals, according to the report. Why is the US government using Anthropic's coding agent significant? The political irony It's interesting that the agency is using the controversial Mythos, not the regular Claude model for the audit, as per the report. Mythos has demonstrated the ability to find, exploit and fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including those in the financial and banking sectors. Upon its release, Mythos was immediately restricted for use only by approved organisations. The political irony is not lost on anyone. Just three months ago, the Pentagon had slapped Anthropic with a supply-chain risk designation. A judge later blocked the blacklisting in March. Mythos has not yet been released to the public. Axios, meanwhile, had reported that the US intelligence agency, the National Security Agency (NSA), had been using Mythos as of April despite the blacklist. The New York Times reported in late June that NSA analysts testing it in classified settings were impressed by its performance. In short, the US security establishment is quietly embracing the very company that the Trump administration had tried to blacklist. Also read: 'They showed us what it could do, and it's scary': Congressman on Anthropic Mythos model demo Which websites are included for Anthropic code-checking? The Reuters report said the Anthropic AI model would be used for auditing government code repositories, not websites as such. The task is being carried out by CISA's Attack Surface Evaluation (ASE) team, which conducts digital security assessments and authorised hacking exercises across government systems. It is not clear exactly how much government code the team has reviewed or the nature and severity of the vulnerabilities it has discovered. Nor have CISA or Anthropic disclosed which government departments or websites are included in the programme. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-lifts-export-curbs-on-anthropic-s-fable-and-mythos-ai-models-1782909734073/embed Finance, business and economy relevance The ASE team works across the federal government. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that systems operated by the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Commerce could potentially fall within the scope of these audits, although the Reuters story does not specifically mention any of these agencies. Notably, in February, the Treasury, State and Health and Human Services Departments issued statements confirming compliance with the government directive at the time to phase out Anthropic tools following government order. Also read: From Mythos to reality: Anthropic launches Claude Fable 5, its most powerful public AI model Is the US government admitting that its code needs fixing? The sources cited by Reuters said the audits had already uncovered a large number of vulnerabilities. However, this should not be interpreted as an admission that government software is fundamentally broken. Large organisations routinely conduct code audits because legacy software, outdated libraries and coding errors inevitably accumulate over time. AI is now making it significantly easier to identify bugs and security vulnerabilities in large volumes of legacy code at scale, allowing agencies to fix weaknesses before they can be exploited by foreign adversaries or cybercriminals.

CISA, the US cybersecurity agency, is using Anthropic's unreleased Mythos AI to audit US government code repositories for cybersecurity flaws. This is a major shift in federal AI adoption despite earlier Trump-era restrictions against Anthropic.

US cybersecurity agency is reportedly using Anthropic's Mythos for auditing govt code. What does it mean?

Microsoft has announced a fresh round of layoffs, affecting nearly 4,800 employees worldwide or around 2.1 per cent of the company's global workforce. The job cuts include a substantial reduction in the Xbox gaming division of the company, which is undertaking a broader restructuring. The latest downsizing comes as the company reshapes its Xbox business strategy in response to growing challenges in the gaming console market.&nbsp;The move will significantly impact Microsoft's gaming business as nearly 1,600 Xbox employees have already been affected, and Microsoft has highlighted that further job cuts are likely during the ongoing fiscal year. In response to the development, Xbox CEO Asha Sharma, who is in charge of the gaming division, stated that the restructuring is focused on resetting the business.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/suicide-manoeuvre-what-b-52-pilots-must-do-in-the-4-minutes-after-dropping-a-nuclear-bomb-to-survive-1783376909667">'Suicide Manoeuvre': What B-52 pilots must do in the 4 minutes after dropping a nuclear bomb to survive</a> "Our business today is not healthy," Sharma said in a memo. "We are operating at margins that are 3-10x lower than comparable platform and publishing businesses." She also underscored the increasing pressure on the gaming hardware business.<h3>Xbox job cuts&nbsp;</h3>The Xbox job cuts are part of a broader round of layoffs at Microsoft. Chief People Officer Amy Coleman said the move is aimed at aligning the company's workforce with evolving customer needs, rather than replacing employees with artificial intelligence.&nbsp;The latest layoffs follow Microsoft's voluntary buyout programme launched in May, which was offered to about 8,750 employees. Coleman said more than 30 per cent of eligible staff accepted the retirement packages. The fresh round of job cuts comes as Microsoft presses ahead with its ongoing workforce restructuring.

The move will significantly impact Microsoft's gaming business as nearly 1,600 Xbox employees have already been affected, and Microsoft has highlighted that further job cuts are likely during the ongoing fiscal year. 

Microsoft has announced a fresh round of layoffs, affecting nearly 4,800 employees worldwide or around 2.1 per cent of the company's global workforce. The job cuts include a substantial reduction in the Xbox gaming division of the company, which is undertaking a broader restructuring. The latest downsizing comes as the company reshapes its Xbox business strategy in response to growing challenges in the gaming console market. The move will significantly impact Microsoft's gaming business as nearly 1,600 Xbox employees have already been affected, and Microsoft has highlighted that further job cuts are likely during the ongoing fiscal year. In response to the development, Xbox CEO Asha Sharma, who is in charge of the gaming division, stated that the restructuring is focused on resetting the business. Also read: 'Suicide Manoeuvre': What B-52 pilots must do in the 4 minutes after dropping a nuclear bomb to survive "Our business today is not healthy," Sharma said in a memo. "We are operating at margins that are 3-10x lower than comparable platform and publishing businesses." She also underscored the increasing pressure on the gaming hardware business. Xbox job cuts The Xbox job cuts are part of a broader round of layoffs at Microsoft. Chief People Officer Amy Coleman said the move is aimed at aligning the company's workforce with evolving customer needs, rather than replacing employees with artificial intelligence. The latest layoffs follow Microsoft's voluntary buyout programme launched in May, which was offered to about 8,750 employees. Coleman said more than 30 per cent of eligible staff accepted the retirement packages. The fresh round of job cuts comes as Microsoft presses ahead with its ongoing workforce restructuring.

The move will significantly impact Microsoft's gaming business as nearly 1,600 Xbox employees have already been affected, and Microsoft has highlighted that further job cuts are likely during the ongoing fiscal year.&nbsp;

Microsoft lay off 4,800 employees as Xbox gaming division undergoes major restructuring

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday (Jul 6) called for a global governance system to shape artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. He warned against allowing the technology to “vibe-code” our future. Speaking ahead of the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, the UN chief cautioned “an experiment is being run on our own societies, without a plan and without consent,” which is not sustainable.He warned that AI systems are no longer passive tools. “They are writing code, acting online and making choices with less and less human oversight,” he said, noting that current institutions were built for machines that follow instructions – not ones that increasingly make decisions on their own.“The question is whether we will shape this transformation together, or let it shape us,” he said, underscoring both the promise and risks of the technology.<h2>UN chief warns against ‘vibe-coding’</h2>While acknowledging AI’s potential to transform healthcare, education and development, Guterres said the pace of change is outstripping safeguards. He also warned of growing over-reliance on AI systems and the spread of misinformation, cautioning against what he described as “vibe-coding”. “But we cannot vibe-code the truth. We cannot vibe-code the future of humanity,” he said.Vibe coding refers to an intent-driven software development approach where natural language is used to guide an AI assistant in building an application.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/as-global-supply-chains-shift-can-india-become-the-next-manufacturing-hub-1783159714059">As global supply chains shift, can India become the next manufacturing hub?</a>Guterres added that a key concern is the concentration of AI power in a handful of companies and countries, leaving much of the world without a meaningful voice in shaping its trajectory.Guterres calls for child safety rules and AI standardsHe called for common global standards to assess AI risks, stronger protections for children, and a proposed AI Child Safety Pledge to ensure systems accessible to minors are safe.<h2>‘Killer robots’</h2>On military applications, Guterres issued his starkest warning yet, referring to autonomous weapons as “Killer robots,” describing them as machines that do the “selecting and engaging their target and taking a life, – without human control and judgement.” He said such systems “must be banned by international law.”“The door is still open. It will not stay open long,” he cautioned, urging governments to act before the technology outpaces humanity’s ability to control it.Watch | AI could operate companies under Argentina's new bill<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-could-operate-companies-under-argentina-s-new-bill-1783164441244/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-could-operate-companies-under-argentina-s-new-bill-1783164441244/embed</a>&nbsp;

UN chief António Guterres called for global AI rules, warning the world cannot “vibe-code the future” as the technology advances faster than oversight.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday (Jul 6) called for a global governance system to shape artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. He warned against allowing the technology to “vibe-code” our future. Speaking ahead of the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, the UN chief cautioned “an experiment is being run on our own societies, without a plan and without consent,” which is not sustainable. He warned that AI systems are no longer passive tools. “They are writing code, acting online and making choices with less and less human oversight,” he said, noting that current institutions were built for machines that follow instructions – not ones that increasingly make decisions on their own. “The question is whether we will shape this transformation together, or let it shape us,” he said, underscoring both the promise and risks of the technology. UN chief warns against ‘vibe-coding’ While acknowledging AI’s potential to transform healthcare, education and development, Guterres said the pace of change is outstripping safeguards. He also warned of growing over-reliance on AI systems and the spread of misinformation, cautioning against what he described as “vibe-coding”. “But we cannot vibe-code the truth. We cannot vibe-code the future of humanity,” he said. Vibe coding refers to an intent-driven software development approach where natural language is used to guide an AI assistant in building an application. Also read | As global supply chains shift, can India become the next manufacturing hub? Guterres added that a key concern is the concentration of AI power in a handful of companies and countries, leaving much of the world without a meaningful voice in shaping its trajectory. Guterres calls for child safety rules and AI standards He called for common global standards to assess AI risks, stronger protections for children, and a proposed AI Child Safety Pledge to ensure systems accessible to minors are safe. ‘Killer robots’ On military applications, Guterres issued his starkest warning yet, referring to autonomous weapons as “Killer robots,” describing them as machines that do the “selecting and engaging their target and taking a life, – without human control and judgement.” He said such systems “must be banned by international law.” “The door is still open. It will not stay open long,” he cautioned, urging governments to act before the technology outpaces humanity’s ability to control it. Watch | AI could operate companies under Argentina's new bill https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-could-operate-companies-under-argentina-s-new-bill-1783164441244/embed

UN chief António Guterres called for global AI rules, warning the world cannot “vibe-code the future” as the technology advances faster than oversight.

‘We cannot vibe-code future’: UN chief sounds alarm over AI, calls for global rules

New Delhi: Medha Jaishankar, a Los Angeles-based filmmaker known for producing features like ‘He Went That Way’ (starring Jacob Elordi and Zachary Quinto) and ‘Please Don’t Feed the Children’, has joined the advisory board of Aaroogya AI Foundation. The move coincides with the Indian organisation’s plans to take its AI-powered women’s health platform international.&nbsp;A member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, Medha brings expertise in storytelling, international advocacy, and emerging technologies. Her personal connection to women’s health issues, including family experience with breast cancer, drew her to the cause.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Datta sisters, Priyanjali and Shyanjali, founded (and now lead) the Aaroogya AI Foundation after their own family’s health struggles. Their mother was diagnosed with Essential Thrombocytosis, a rare blood disorder, and Shyanjali was born with a rare condition that required multiple surgeries. These experiences inspired them to create accessible, compassionate healthcare solutions. The name “Aaroogya” comes from Sanskrit for holistic well-being.&nbsp;&nbsp;Priyanjali, a former medical student turned tech entrepreneur and product growth leader, co-founded the initiative. Shyanjali serves as CEO and has been instrumental in scaling operations. The sisters hail from Meghalaya and started the work in 2017, well before AI became mainstream. Aaroogya has built AAHA, a voice-based multilingual AI agent that lets community health workers screen women through natural conversation, triage symptoms, and flag serious conditions like breast cancer, PCOS, or anaemia.&nbsp;&nbsp;So far, it has screened over 137,000 women, trained more than 4,000 health workers, contributed to 23,740 early diagnoses and boosted treatment adherence to 87%. Its MyHealthline platform supports frontline workers in low-resource areas, delivering proactive care that the organisation says generates three times the social return on investment.&nbsp;Medha Jaishankar praised the Datta sisters for building a system that truly “sees” women. She said, “They turned their personal pain into a platform that is saving lives at scale. I joined Aaroogya’s board because this work deserves to reach every corner of the world, and I know what it is to need a system that actually sees you.”&nbsp;Explaining further, she said, “Women’s health deserves to be at the centre, everywhere. Aaroogya is proof that when you truly centre women’s lives, real change follows. I am honoured to help carry that message forward.”&nbsp;Aaroogya prepares to expand beyond India into other low- and middle-income countries with stretched women’s health services. The foundation operates with a cross-continental team in California and India, adapting its tools to local public health systems while emphasising ethics, empathy, and privacy.&nbsp;Women’s health remains a significant challenge in many parts of the world, with late diagnoses and limited access to screening contributing to high mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries. Supporters see AI tools like Aaroogya’s as a potential way to bridge gaps where doctors and specialists are scarce.

Aaroogya prepares to expand beyond India into other low- and middle-income countries with stretched women’s health services. The foundation operates with a cross-continental team in California and India, adapting its tools to local public health systems.

New Delhi: Medha Jaishankar, a Los Angeles-based filmmaker known for producing features like ‘He Went That Way’ (starring Jacob Elordi and Zachary Quinto) and ‘Please Don’t Feed the Children’, has joined the advisory board of Aaroogya AI Foundation. The move coincides with the Indian organisation’s plans to take its AI-powered women’s health platform international. A member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, Medha brings expertise in storytelling, international advocacy, and emerging technologies. Her personal connection to women’s health issues, including family experience with breast cancer, drew her to the cause. The Datta sisters, Priyanjali and Shyanjali, founded (and now lead) the Aaroogya AI Foundation after their own family’s health struggles. Their mother was diagnosed with Essential Thrombocytosis, a rare blood disorder, and Shyanjali was born with a rare condition that required multiple surgeries. These experiences inspired them to create accessible, compassionate healthcare solutions. The name “Aaroogya” comes from Sanskrit for holistic well-being. Priyanjali, a former medical student turned tech entrepreneur and product growth leader, co-founded the initiative. Shyanjali serves as CEO and has been instrumental in scaling operations. The sisters hail from Meghalaya and started the work in 2017, well before AI became mainstream. Aaroogya has built AAHA, a voice-based multilingual AI agent that lets community health workers screen women through natural conversation, triage symptoms, and flag serious conditions like breast cancer, PCOS, or anaemia. So far, it has screened over 137,000 women, trained more than 4,000 health workers, contributed to 23,740 early diagnoses and boosted treatment adherence to 87%. Its MyHealthline platform supports frontline workers in low-resource areas, delivering proactive care that the organisation says generates three times the social return on investment. Medha Jaishankar praised the Datta sisters for building a system that truly “sees” women. She said, “They turned their personal pain into a platform that is saving lives at scale. I joined Aaroogya’s board because this work deserves to reach every corner of the world, and I know what it is to need a system that actually sees you.” Explaining further, she said, “Women’s health deserves to be at the centre, everywhere. Aaroogya is proof that when you truly centre women’s lives, real change follows. I am honoured to help carry that message forward.” Aaroogya prepares to expand beyond India into other low- and middle-income countries with stretched women’s health services. The foundation operates with a cross-continental team in California and India, adapting its tools to local public health systems while emphasising ethics, empathy, and privacy. Women’s health remains a significant challenge in many parts of the world, with late diagnoses and limited access to screening contributing to high mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries. Supporters see AI tools like Aaroogya’s as a potential way to bridge gaps where doctors and specialists are scarce.

Aaroogya prepares to expand beyond India into other low- and middle-income countries with stretched women’s health services. The foundation operates with a cross-continental team in California and India, adapting its tools to local public health systems.

From cinema to care: Filmmaker Medha Jaishankar champions AI health tech for marginalised women

On a random morning, a farmer in Rajasthan receives a government subsidy directly into his Jan Dhan account. A nurse in Patna verifies her identity at a hospital counter with a face scan. A student in Lucknow opens ChatGPT to prepare for a competitive exam. None of them thinks about what makes it possible. That is what infrastructure does: it disappears into the background of daily life until something forces it back into view.Data centres are being forced back into view. Around the world, the facilities that store data, run applications, and power artificial intelligence are under fire for the resources they consume – water, electricity, and land – in quantities that strain the cities built around them. In India, that conversation is arriving alongside one of the largest waves of digital infrastructure investment the country has ever seen. Before joining it, India needs to honestly answer one question that most of that debate skips: can it actually stop building these facilities?The answer, examined carefully, seems no. But the reason is more specific, and more important, than most people realise.<h2>The invisible engine</h2>According to the Press Information Bureau, UPI processed 18.39 billion transactions in June 2025 alone, worth over Rs 24.03 lakh crore, serving 491 million individuals, 65 million merchants, and 675 banks on a single platform. The National Payments Corporation of India reports that UPI accounts for 85 per cent of all digital transactions in India and nearly 50 per cent of all real-time digital payments globally.But here is what the debate rarely surfaces: UPI is not simply running on conventional server infrastructure. Artificial intelligence is already inside it. Earlier, NPCI's Chief Risk Officer Viswanath Krishnamurthy disclosed that the organisation is deploying AI-based analytical models to assign real-time risk scores to UPI transactions, a response to fraud on the platform climbing 85 per cent in FY 2023-24, with losses reaching Rs 1,087 crore. Speaking at Mumbai Tech Week 2026, NPCI Managing Director and CEO Dilip Asbe earlier highlighted that AI will be central to taking UPI from 750 million toward one billion daily transactions, through fraud detection, credit access, and multilingual voice onboarding for the next wave of users, as reported by Technology website TechCrunch.Aadhaar carries the same story. The AI and machine learning-based face authentication system developed entirely in-house by UIDAI has recorded over 130.5 crore cumulative transactions since its introduction in October 2022, with close to 102 crore of those occurring in FY 2024-25 alone, a growth rate that MeitY described as a 21.6 percent month-on-month jump in March 2025. The system runs welfare delivery across PM-JAY, PM Kisan, PM Awas, PM Ujjwala, and PM Internship, flagship government schemes reaching hundreds of millions of Indians. Every face scan on every one of those transactions runs an AI model on a server inside a data centre.The boundary between conventional digital infrastructure and AI infrastructure does not exist in India's public systems. AI is already built into them.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/openai-discussed-giving-us-government-a-5-stake-what-it-could-mean-for-the-future-of-ai-1783099768026">OpenAI discussed giving US government a 5% stake: What it could mean for the future of AI</a><h2>The 100 million question</h2>In February 2026, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman disclosed in an article published in the Times of India, ahead of the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, that India has 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users, making it the platform's second-largest market globally after the United States, a position it has held for several months. India also has the largest student population using ChatGPT of any country on earth. Google's Gemini, meanwhile, is being offered free for 18 months to over 500 million Jio subscribers, with India ranking highest globally in Gemini usage for learning, according to Google.This is the dimension of the data centre debate that goes largely unacknowledged. The same people raising concerns about AI infrastructure expansion are, in enormous numbers, among the heaviest users of the AI products those facilities exist to power. Every ChatGPT query, every Gemini response, every AI-assisted search runs through a data centre drawing power from the grid and water from the city around it. The infrastructure being questioned outside city limits is being quietly used, at scale, every day, on the phones in people's pockets.This is not an argument against scrutiny. It is an argument for honesty about what, exactly, is being scrutinised.<h2>Not infrastructure, but sovereignty</h2>The case for domestic data centre capacity is not only an operational one. It is a sovereignty argument, and India has been building the legal architecture to support it for years.The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, enacted on August 11, 2023, and operationalised through DPDP Rules notified by MeitY on November 13, 2025, creates a rights-based, consent-driven framework governing how companies collect, store, and process the personal data of Indian citizens. The Reserve Bank of India has separately mandated that all payment system data be stored exclusively on Indian soil. Both frameworks only carry force if the physical infrastructure to underpin them exists within Indian jurisdiction.According to JLL's India Data Centre Market Report for the first half of 2025, India generates approximately 20 percent of global data while hosting only around three percent of global data centre capacity. That gap is a strategic exposure that no legislation can close without the infrastructure to match it. DPDPA is of limited consequence if Indian citizen data resides on servers in Singapore or Frankfurt, beyond the reach of Indian courts and regulators."When you are building a payments platform or a banking application in India, data localisation shapes architectural decisions from day one, where data is stored, how it moves between services, and how you handle latency-sensitive transactions in real time," Rama Krishna Sreepada, Co-Founder and Chief Architect at [x]Cube Labs, told WION. "The gap between the volume of data India generates and the infrastructure available to process it locally is where the real risk lives. When infrastructure is stretched, response times degrade, redundancy shrinks, and recovery windows get longer. For an end user, that is a failed transaction at a payment terminal or a banking app unavailable when it matters most."Also read | B<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/beyond-ai-models-anthropic-is-exploring-a-custom-ai-chip-with-samsung-here-s-why-it-matters-1783063066423">eyond AI models: Anthropic is exploring a custom AI chip with Samsung. Here's why it matters</a><h2>Why the world is betting on India</h2>The scale of committed investment makes the direction of travel unmistakable. Microsoft has pledged $17.5 billion toward data centre infrastructure in India, announced in December 2025. Google committed $6 billion to a facility in Andhra Pradesh in July 2025. The Adani Group announced $100 billion in AI-ready capacity by 2035, in partnership with both companies. According to Colliers, India's live data centre capacity will triple from 1,263 MW in 2024 to 4,500 MW by 2030. Deloitte projects total investment in the sector reaching up to $200 billion by 2030. The four largest global hyperscalers collectively planned up to $725 billion in capital expenditure for 2026, with approximately 75 percent directed toward AI infrastructure, according to company earnings disclosures and IEEE Communications Society analysis.This capital is not arriving out of goodwill. It is arriving because India's billion-scale digital population, its accelerating AI adoption, its data localisation requirements, and its improving infrastructure make it one of the most strategically consequential data centre markets in the world for the next decade."Rack power densities are increasing from around 15 kW to as much as 140 kW, while most new developments are being planned as Tier III and Tier IV facilities requiring greater power redundancy," said Gautam Saraf, Executive Managing Director, Mumbai and New Business at Cushman &amp; Wakefield, which advises hyperscalers, operators, and investors on data centre strategy across India. "Speed to power is now a critical determinant of project viability, with grid connection timelines increasingly shaping investment decisions."Watch | AI job shock? California study tracks rising layoffs since ChatGPT launch<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-job-shock-california-study-tracks-rising-layoffs-since-chatgpt-launch-1783012300163/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-job-shock-california-study-tracks-rising-layoffs-since-chatgpt-launch-1783012300163/embed</a><h2>The answer</h2>So the question of whether India can stop building data centres is not really about data centres at all. It is a question about whether India can afford to switch off the AI system authenticating 130 crore Aadhaar face scans annually. Whether it can remove the fraud detection layer from hundreds of millions of daily UPI transactions. Whether it can tell 100 million weekly ChatGPT users, the largest student AI user base on the planet, that the infrastructure powering their tools will not be built here.None of those are realistic options. "Every banking app, every UPI transaction, every digital lending decision runs on physical infrastructure somewhere, and the stability of those services is directly tied to the health of that infrastructure," Sreepada told WION. "Closing the data centre capacity gap is the next critical step in making that progress genuinely resilient at scale” he added.India must build this infrastructure. The only question that remains, and it is the more consequential one, is on whose terms, at what cost to its water systems and power grid, and with what accountability framework in place.That is exactly where Part 2 of this series begins.The infrastructure is non-negotiable. What happens inside it, around it, and because of it, that is where the real debate begins.

Microsoft put in $17.5 billion, Google $6 billion, Adani $100 billion. The world has already decided India needs this infrastructure. The question India has not answered yet is whether it will build it on its own terms or someone else's.

On a random morning, a farmer in Rajasthan receives a government subsidy directly into his Jan Dhan account. A nurse in Patna verifies her identity at a hospital counter with a face scan. A student in Lucknow opens ChatGPT to prepare for a competitive exam. None of them thinks about what makes it possible. That is what infrastructure does: it disappears into the background of daily life until something forces it back into view. Data centres are being forced back into view. Around the world, the facilities that store data, run applications, and power artificial intelligence are under fire for the resources they consume – water, electricity, and land – in quantities that strain the cities built around them. In India, that conversation is arriving alongside one of the largest waves of digital infrastructure investment the country has ever seen. Before joining it, India needs to honestly answer one question that most of that debate skips: can it actually stop building these facilities? The answer, examined carefully, seems no. But the reason is more specific, and more important, than most people realise. The invisible engine According to the Press Information Bureau, UPI processed 18.39 billion transactions in June 2025 alone, worth over Rs 24.03 lakh crore, serving 491 million individuals, 65 million merchants, and 675 banks on a single platform. The National Payments Corporation of India reports that UPI accounts for 85 per cent of all digital transactions in India and nearly 50 per cent of all real-time digital payments globally. But here is what the debate rarely surfaces: UPI is not simply running on conventional server infrastructure. Artificial intelligence is already inside it. Earlier, NPCI's Chief Risk Officer Viswanath Krishnamurthy disclosed that the organisation is deploying AI-based analytical models to assign real-time risk scores to UPI transactions, a response to fraud on the platform climbing 85 per cent in FY 2023-24, with losses reaching Rs 1,087 crore. Speaking at Mumbai Tech Week 2026, NPCI Managing Director and CEO Dilip Asbe earlier highlighted that AI will be central to taking UPI from 750 million toward one billion daily transactions, through fraud detection, credit access, and multilingual voice onboarding for the next wave of users, as reported by Technology website TechCrunch. Aadhaar carries the same story. The AI and machine learning-based face authentication system developed entirely in-house by UIDAI has recorded over 130.5 crore cumulative transactions since its introduction in October 2022, with close to 102 crore of those occurring in FY 2024-25 alone, a growth rate that MeitY described as a 21.6 percent month-on-month jump in March 2025. The system runs welfare delivery across PM-JAY, PM Kisan, PM Awas, PM Ujjwala, and PM Internship, flagship government schemes reaching hundreds of millions of Indians. Every face scan on every one of those transactions runs an AI model on a server inside a data centre. The boundary between conventional digital infrastructure and AI infrastructure does not exist in India's public systems. AI is already built into them. Also read | OpenAI discussed giving US government a 5% stake: What it could mean for the future of AI The 100 million question In February 2026, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman disclosed in an article published in the Times of India, ahead of the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, that India has 100 million weekly active ChatGPT users, making it the platform's second-largest market globally after the United States, a position it has held for several months. India also has the largest student population using ChatGPT of any country on earth. Google's Gemini, meanwhile, is being offered free for 18 months to over 500 million Jio subscribers, with India ranking highest globally in Gemini usage for learning, according to Google. This is the dimension of the data centre debate that goes largely unacknowledged. The same people raising concerns about AI infrastructure expansion are, in enormous numbers, among the heaviest users of the AI products those facilities exist to power. Every ChatGPT query, every Gemini response, every AI-assisted search runs through a data centre drawing power from the grid and water from the city around it. The infrastructure being questioned outside city limits is being quietly used, at scale, every day, on the phones in people's pockets. This is not an argument against scrutiny. It is an argument for honesty about what, exactly, is being scrutinised. Not infrastructure, but sovereignty The case for domestic data centre capacity is not only an operational one. It is a sovereignty argument, and India has been building the legal architecture to support it for years. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, enacted on August 11, 2023, and operationalised through DPDP Rules notified by MeitY on November 13, 2025, creates a rights-based, consent-driven framework governing how companies collect, store, and process the personal data of Indian citizens. The Reserve Bank of India has separately mandated that all payment system data be stored exclusively on Indian soil. Both frameworks only carry force if the physical infrastructure to underpin them exists within Indian jurisdiction. According to JLL's India Data Centre Market Report for the first half of 2025, India generates approximately 20 percent of global data while hosting only around three percent of global data centre capacity. That gap is a strategic exposure that no legislation can close without the infrastructure to match it. DPDPA is of limited consequence if Indian citizen data resides on servers in Singapore or Frankfurt, beyond the reach of Indian courts and regulators. "When you are building a payments platform or a banking application in India, data localisation shapes architectural decisions from day one, where data is stored, how it moves between services, and how you handle latency-sensitive transactions in real time," Rama Krishna Sreepada, Co-Founder and Chief Architect at [x]Cube Labs, told WION. "The gap between the volume of data India generates and the infrastructure available to process it locally is where the real risk lives. When infrastructure is stretched, response times degrade, redundancy shrinks, and recovery windows get longer. For an end user, that is a failed transaction at a payment terminal or a banking app unavailable when it matters most." Also read | Beyond AI models: Anthropic is exploring a custom AI chip with Samsung. Here's why it matters Why the world is betting on India The scale of committed investment makes the direction of travel unmistakable. Microsoft has pledged $17.5 billion toward data centre infrastructure in India, announced in December 2025. Google committed $6 billion to a facility in Andhra Pradesh in July 2025. The Adani Group announced $100 billion in AI-ready capacity by 2035, in partnership with both companies. According to Colliers, India's live data centre capacity will triple from 1,263 MW in 2024 to 4,500 MW by 2030. Deloitte projects total investment in the sector reaching up to $200 billion by 2030. The four largest global hyperscalers collectively planned up to $725 billion in capital expenditure for 2026, with approximately 75 percent directed toward AI infrastructure, according to company earnings disclosures and IEEE Communications Society analysis. This capital is not arriving out of goodwill. It is arriving because India's billion-scale digital population, its accelerating AI adoption, its data localisation requirements, and its improving infrastructure make it one of the most strategically consequential data centre markets in the world for the next decade. "Rack power densities are increasing from around 15 kW to as much as 140 kW, while most new developments are being planned as Tier III and Tier IV facilities requiring greater power redundancy," said Gautam Saraf, Executive Managing Director, Mumbai and New Business at Cushman & Wakefield, which advises hyperscalers, operators, and investors on data centre strategy across India. "Speed to power is now a critical determinant of project viability, with grid connection timelines increasingly shaping investment decisions." Watch | AI job shock? California study tracks rising layoffs since ChatGPT launch https://www.wionews.com/videos/ai-job-shock-california-study-tracks-rising-layoffs-since-chatgpt-launch-1783012300163/embed The answer So the question of whether India can stop building data centres is not really about data centres at all. It is a question about whether India can afford to switch off the AI system authenticating 130 crore Aadhaar face scans annually. Whether it can remove the fraud detection layer from hundreds of millions of daily UPI transactions. Whether it can tell 100 million weekly ChatGPT users, the largest student AI user base on the planet, that the infrastructure powering their tools will not be built here. None of those are realistic options. "Every banking app, every UPI transaction, every digital lending decision runs on physical infrastructure somewhere, and the stability of those services is directly tied to the health of that infrastructure," Sreepada told WION. "Closing the data centre capacity gap is the next critical step in making that progress genuinely resilient at scale” he added. India must build this infrastructure. The only question that remains, and it is the more consequential one, is on whose terms, at what cost to its water systems and power grid, and with what accountability framework in place. That is exactly where Part 2 of this series begins. The infrastructure is non-negotiable. What happens inside it, around it, and because of it, that is where the real debate begins.

Microsoft put in $17.5 billion, Google $6 billion, Adani $100 billion. The world has already decided India needs this infrastructure. The question India has not answered yet is whether it will build it on its own terms or someone else's.

The big data centre debate: Are they optional?

One of the biggest reasons people continue using an iPhone for four, five or even six years is its long-lasting performance. While many smartphones become slower over time, older iPhones often remain fast enough for everyday tasks. This isn't down to a single feature. Instead, Apple combines powerful chips, software optimisation and long-term updates to keep its devices running smoothly.<h2>Apple designs both the chip and the software</h2>Unlike most smartphone brands, Apple designs its own A-series processors while also developing iOS. Because the hardware and software are built together, iOS is carefully optimised for the processor, memory and battery inside each iPhone. This allows apps to open quickly, animations to stay smooth and multitasking to remain responsive even after years of use. Instead of adding extra software layers, Apple keeps iOS closely integrated with its hardware.<h2>Long software support helps performance</h2>Apple is known for providing software updates for many years after a device launches. These updates do more than add new features. They also include performance improvements, bug fixes and security patches that help older iPhones remain stable and reliable. Many Android manufacturers have improved their software support in recent years, but Apple's update policy remains one of the longest in the smartphone industry.Fast storage and memory management matter tooPerformance is not only about the processor.Apple uses high-speed storage, efficient memory management and background app controls to reduce slowdowns over time. Apps that are not being used are managed efficiently, helping the phone stay responsive without consuming unnecessary resources. Developers also optimise many popular apps for iOS first because Apple supports a smaller number of devices than the Android ecosystem.<h2>Battery health also affects speed</h2>Battery ageing can influence smartphone performance. When an iPhone's battery becomes worn, iOS may temporarily reduce peak performance to prevent unexpected shutdowns. Apple introduced Battery Health tools so users can monitor battery condition and replace the battery if needed. A new battery can often make an older iPhone feel significantly faster.<h2>Why iPhones often age better</h2>Apple's strategy focuses on long-term optimisation rather than simply adding bigger specifications each year. Powerful custom chips, years of software updates, efficient memory management and close integration between hardware and software all help iPhones remain fast well beyond their launch date. That is why many users continue using the same iPhone for several years without feeling the need to upgrade every year.&nbsp;

iPhones often remain fast for years because Apple designs both the hardware and software together. Powerful chips, long software support, efficient memory management and battery optimisation help older iPhones continue delivering smooth everyday performance.

One of the biggest reasons people continue using an iPhone for four, five or even six years is its long-lasting performance. While many smartphones become slower over time, older iPhones often remain fast enough for everyday tasks. This isn't down to a single feature. Instead, Apple combines powerful chips, software optimisation and long-term updates to keep its devices running smoothly. Apple designs both the chip and the software Unlike most smartphone brands, Apple designs its own A-series processors while also developing iOS. Because the hardware and software are built together, iOS is carefully optimised for the processor, memory and battery inside each iPhone. This allows apps to open quickly, animations to stay smooth and multitasking to remain responsive even after years of use. Instead of adding extra software layers, Apple keeps iOS closely integrated with its hardware. Long software support helps performance Apple is known for providing software updates for many years after a device launches. These updates do more than add new features. They also include performance improvements, bug fixes and security patches that help older iPhones remain stable and reliable. Many Android manufacturers have improved their software support in recent years, but Apple's update policy remains one of the longest in the smartphone industry. Fast storage and memory management matter too Performance is not only about the processor. Apple uses high-speed storage, efficient memory management and background app controls to reduce slowdowns over time. Apps that are not being used are managed efficiently, helping the phone stay responsive without consuming unnecessary resources. Developers also optimise many popular apps for iOS first because Apple supports a smaller number of devices than the Android ecosystem. Battery health also affects speed Battery ageing can influence smartphone performance. When an iPhone's battery becomes worn, iOS may temporarily reduce peak performance to prevent unexpected shutdowns. Apple introduced Battery Health tools so users can monitor battery condition and replace the battery if needed. A new battery can often make an older iPhone feel significantly faster. Why iPhones often age better Apple's strategy focuses on long-term optimisation rather than simply adding bigger specifications each year. Powerful custom chips, years of software updates, efficient memory management and close integration between hardware and software all help iPhones remain fast well beyond their launch date. That is why many users continue using the same iPhone for several years without feeling the need to upgrade every year.

iPhones often remain fast for years because Apple designs both the hardware and software together. Powerful chips, long software support, efficient memory management and battery optimisation help older iPhones continue delivering smooth everyday performance.

Apple's secret chip: The real reason iPhones stay smooth for years

Apple has released dozens of iPhone models over the past 19 years, but one generation remains its biggest commercial success. According to industry estimates from market research firms including Omdia and CIRP, the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are still Apple's best-selling smartphones ever, with combined lifetime sales estimated at more than 220 million units.Apple does not officially publish lifetime sales figures for individual iPhone models. However, analysts widely agree that the iPhone 6 family remains the company's biggest seller.<h2>Why did the iPhone 6 become such a huge success?</h2>When Apple introduced the iPhone 6 in September 2014, it marked one of the biggest changes in iPhone history. After years of offering smaller displays, Apple finally launched larger 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch screens. At the time, many Android smartphones had already moved towards bigger displays, and millions of Apple users had delayed upgrading while waiting for larger iPhones. The iPhone 6 arrived at the right moment, creating one of the strongest upgrade cycles Apple had ever seen.The phones also introduced a slimmer aluminium design, improved cameras, the A8 processor, Apple Pay and faster LTE connectivity, making them attractive upgrades for both existing iPhone users and first-time buyers.<h2>The launch that helped Apple reach new heights</h2>The success of the iPhone 6 went far beyond smartphone sales. The launch helped Apple report record quarterly revenue and profits. It also strengthened the company's position in key markets such as China, where demand for larger-screen smartphones was growing rapidly. Industry analysts believe the iPhone 6 series generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue and became one of the products that established Apple as one of the world's most valuable companies.<h2>Which iPhones sold the most after the iPhone 6?</h2>Several newer models have also recorded impressive sales. The iPhone 11, iPhone XR, iPhone 7 series and iPhone 12 family all ranked among Apple's best-selling devices, thanks to improved cameras, better battery life and wider 5G adoption. However, none has surpassed the estimated lifetime sales of the iPhone 6 generation.<h2>Why hasn't Apple broken the record yet?</h2>Today's iPhone lineup is much broader than it was a decade ago. Apple now sells standard, Plus, Pro and Pro Max models at the same time. As demand is spread across multiple devices, it has become more difficult for a single iPhone model to achieve the extraordinary sales numbers recorded by the iPhone 6 family. Even so, newer iPhones often generate higher revenue because of their premium prices. That means Apple's latest flagship devices can earn more money despite selling fewer units than the record-setting iPhone 6.

The iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus remain Apple's best-selling smartphones ever, with industry estimates putting lifetime sales above 220 million units. Larger displays, strong demand and a major upgrade cycle helped make them Apple's biggest commercial success.


Apple has released dozens of iPhone models over the past 19 years, but one generation remains its biggest commercial success. According to industry estimates from market research firms including Omdia and CIRP, the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are still Apple's best-selling smartphones ever, with combined lifetime sales estimated at more than 220 million units. Apple does not officially publish lifetime sales figures for individual iPhone models. However, analysts widely agree that the iPhone 6 family remains the company's biggest seller. Why did the iPhone 6 become such a huge success? When Apple introduced the iPhone 6 in September 2014, it marked one of the biggest changes in iPhone history. After years of offering smaller displays, Apple finally launched larger 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch screens. At the time, many Android smartphones had already moved towards bigger displays, and millions of Apple users had delayed upgrading while waiting for larger iPhones. The iPhone 6 arrived at the right moment, creating one of the strongest upgrade cycles Apple had ever seen. The phones also introduced a slimmer aluminium design, improved cameras, the A8 processor, Apple Pay and faster LTE connectivity, making them attractive upgrades for both existing iPhone users and first-time buyers. The launch that helped Apple reach new heights The success of the iPhone 6 went far beyond smartphone sales. The launch helped Apple report record quarterly revenue and profits. It also strengthened the company's position in key markets such as China, where demand for larger-screen smartphones was growing rapidly. Industry analysts believe the iPhone 6 series generated tens of billions of dollars in revenue and became one of the products that established Apple as one of the world's most valuable companies. Which iPhones sold the most after the iPhone 6? Several newer models have also recorded impressive sales. The iPhone 11, iPhone XR, iPhone 7 series and iPhone 12 family all ranked among Apple's best-selling devices, thanks to improved cameras, better battery life and wider 5G adoption. However, none has surpassed the estimated lifetime sales of the iPhone 6 generation. Why hasn't Apple broken the record yet? Today's iPhone lineup is much broader than it was a decade ago. Apple now sells standard, Plus, Pro and Pro Max models at the same time. As demand is spread across multiple devices, it has become more difficult for a single iPhone model to achieve the extraordinary sales numbers recorded by the iPhone 6 family. Even so, newer iPhones often generate higher revenue because of their premium prices. That means Apple's latest flagship devices can earn more money despite selling fewer units than the record-setting iPhone 6.

The iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus remain Apple's best-selling smartphones ever, with industry estimates putting lifetime sales above 220 million units. Larger displays, strong demand and a major upgrade cycle helped make them Apple's biggest commercial success.

220+ million units: Do you know which Apple iPhone model sold the most units ever?

Whether you're planning to upgrade next year or keep your phone for five years, resale value matters. It affects how much money you can recover when it's time to buy a new device.For years, market research has shown that iPhones generally retain their value better than most Android smartphones. While both lose value over time, Apple's devices often depreciate at a slower rate.<h2>So, why does this happen?</h2>Long software support keeps older iPhones relevant. One of Apple's biggest advantages is long-term software support. Most iPhones receive major iOS updates for several years after launch. Security updates also continue long after a device is released. This means an older iPhone can still run the latest apps, receive new features and remain secure. For second-hand buyers, that makes an older iPhone a safer purchase than a device that may no longer receive updates.<h2>Strong demand drives higher resale prices</h2>Apple has built one of the world's strongest consumer brands. Every year, millions of buyers look for refurbished or pre-owned iPhones because they offer access to Apple's ecosystem at a lower price. That steady demand helps keep resale prices high. Many Android brands release dozens of new models every year, which increases competition in the second-hand market and often pushes prices down more quickly.<h2>Build quality and performance help devices last longer</h2>Apple designs its hardware and software together, allowing older iPhones to remain smooth and reliable for everyday tasks. Premium materials, durable construction and custom A-series chips also help extend the usable life of the device. A phone that still performs well after several years naturally attracts more buyers. Battery replacement services and widespread repair support also make older iPhones easier to keep in use.<h2>Apple's product strategy plays a role</h2>Apple launches a relatively small number of iPhone models each year. By comparison, the Android market includes hundreds of devices across different price segments. New models arrive frequently, making older phones feel outdated more quickly. Apple's slower product cycle helps older iPhones remain familiar and desirable for longer, supporting stronger resale values.<h2>Is buying an iPhone cheaper in the long run?</h2>Although iPhones usually cost more upfront, they often return more money when sold or traded in. That higher resale value can reduce the overall cost of ownership over several years. Combined with long software support, strong demand and reliable performance, it is one of the reasons many buyers continue choosing iPhones despite their premium price.

iPhones usually hold their resale value better than Android phones because of long software support, strong customer demand, premium build quality and Apple's tightly connected ecosystem.

Whether you're planning to upgrade next year or keep your phone for five years, resale value matters. It affects how much money you can recover when it's time to buy a new device. For years, market research has shown that iPhones generally retain their value better than most Android smartphones. While both lose value over time, Apple's devices often depreciate at a slower rate. So, why does this happen? Long software support keeps older iPhones relevant. One of Apple's biggest advantages is long-term software support. Most iPhones receive major iOS updates for several years after launch. Security updates also continue long after a device is released. This means an older iPhone can still run the latest apps, receive new features and remain secure. For second-hand buyers, that makes an older iPhone a safer purchase than a device that may no longer receive updates. Strong demand drives higher resale prices Apple has built one of the world's strongest consumer brands. Every year, millions of buyers look for refurbished or pre-owned iPhones because they offer access to Apple's ecosystem at a lower price. That steady demand helps keep resale prices high. Many Android brands release dozens of new models every year, which increases competition in the second-hand market and often pushes prices down more quickly. Build quality and performance help devices last longer Apple designs its hardware and software together, allowing older iPhones to remain smooth and reliable for everyday tasks. Premium materials, durable construction and custom A-series chips also help extend the usable life of the device. A phone that still performs well after several years naturally attracts more buyers. Battery replacement services and widespread repair support also make older iPhones easier to keep in use. Apple's product strategy plays a role Apple launches a relatively small number of iPhone models each year. By comparison, the Android market includes hundreds of devices across different price segments. New models arrive frequently, making older phones feel outdated more quickly. Apple's slower product cycle helps older iPhones remain familiar and desirable for longer, supporting stronger resale values. Is buying an iPhone cheaper in the long run? Although iPhones usually cost more upfront, they often return more money when sold or traded in. That higher resale value can reduce the overall cost of ownership over several years. Combined with long software support, strong demand and reliable performance, it is one of the reasons many buyers continue choosing iPhones despite their premium price.

iPhones usually hold their resale value better than Android phones because of long software support, strong customer demand, premium build quality and Apple's tightly connected ecosystem.

Buying an iPhone? Know why iPhones hold their resale value better than Android phones

When people look at smartphone market share, Android appears to be the clear winner. Google's operating system powers around 70 per cent of smartphones worldwide, while Apple's iPhone accounts for a much smaller share. Yet year after year, Apple earns far more profit than most Android phone makers combined. So how does the company achieve this despite selling fewer phones?The answer lies in Apple's premium strategy, ecosystem and growing services business.<h2>Apple focuses on premium phones</h2>Unlike Android, which includes hundreds of manufacturers selling phones across every price range, Apple mainly targets the premium segment. Many Android brands compete aggressively in the budget and mid-range markets, where profit margins are often very small. Apple, on the other hand, sells most iPhones at premium prices. That means it earns significantly more profit from every device it sells. Industry analysts at Counterpoint Research have repeatedly reported that Apple captures the majority of global smartphone operating profits despite shipping fewer devices than the Android ecosystem.<h2>The iPhone is only the beginning</h2>Apple also makes money long after someone buys an iPhone. Many users subscribe to services such as iCloud+, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade and AppleCare. The company also earns revenue through the App Store, where developers pay commissions on many digital purchases. This creates recurring income that continues for years after the original phone sale.The Apple ecosystem keeps users loyalAnother reason is customer retention.Many iPhone users also own an Apple Watch, AirPods, iPad or Mac. These devices work together through features like AirDrop, Handoff, iCloud synchronisation and Continuity. Because everything is connected, customers are more likely to remain within Apple's ecosystem when buying their next device. This loyalty reduces marketing costs and helps Apple maintain strong demand even without leading global shipment volumes.<h2>Profit matters more than market share</h2>Selling the most devices does not always mean earning the most money. Android's large market share comes from many companies competing across different price points, while Apple focuses on fewer models with higher average selling prices. Combined with services revenue, strong brand loyalty and efficient hardware-software integration, this strategy allows Apple to generate industry-leading profits even with fewer smartphone shipments. For Apple, success has never been about selling the most phones it has been about creating long-term value from every customer.

Android powers most smartphones worldwide, but Apple earns the largest share of industry profits. Premium pricing, strong customer loyalty, a connected ecosystem and fast-growing services help Apple make more money despite selling fewer phones.

When people look at smartphone market share, Android appears to be the clear winner. Google's operating system powers around 70 per cent of smartphones worldwide, while Apple's iPhone accounts for a much smaller share. Yet year after year, Apple earns far more profit than most Android phone makers combined. So how does the company achieve this despite selling fewer phones? The answer lies in Apple's premium strategy, ecosystem and growing services business. Apple focuses on premium phones Unlike Android, which includes hundreds of manufacturers selling phones across every price range, Apple mainly targets the premium segment. Many Android brands compete aggressively in the budget and mid-range markets, where profit margins are often very small. Apple, on the other hand, sells most iPhones at premium prices. That means it earns significantly more profit from every device it sells. Industry analysts at Counterpoint Research have repeatedly reported that Apple captures the majority of global smartphone operating profits despite shipping fewer devices than the Android ecosystem. The iPhone is only the beginning Apple also makes money long after someone buys an iPhone. Many users subscribe to services such as iCloud+, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade and AppleCare. The company also earns revenue through the App Store, where developers pay commissions on many digital purchases. This creates recurring income that continues for years after the original phone sale. The Apple ecosystem keeps users loyal Another reason is customer retention. Many iPhone users also own an Apple Watch, AirPods, iPad or Mac. These devices work together through features like AirDrop, Handoff, iCloud synchronisation and Continuity. Because everything is connected, customers are more likely to remain within Apple's ecosystem when buying their next device. This loyalty reduces marketing costs and helps Apple maintain strong demand even without leading global shipment volumes. Profit matters more than market share Selling the most devices does not always mean earning the most money. Android's large market share comes from many companies competing across different price points, while Apple focuses on fewer models with higher average selling prices. Combined with services revenue, strong brand loyalty and efficient hardware-software integration, this strategy allows Apple to generate industry-leading profits even with fewer smartphone shipments. For Apple, success has never been about selling the most phones it has been about creating long-term value from every customer.

Android powers most smartphones worldwide, but Apple earns the largest share of industry profits. Premium pricing, strong customer loyalty, a connected ecosystem and fast-growing services help Apple make more money despite selling fewer phones.

Apple vs Android: Why does Apple sell fewer phones than Android but make more money?

WhatsApp has introduced one of its biggest updates for iPad users, allowing the tablet to function as a primary device rather than relying entirely on an iPhone. The change marks another step in Meta's effort to make WhatsApp work more smoothly across multiple devices. Until now, many users treated the iPad version as an extension of their phone. With the latest update, users can set up and use WhatsApp directly on an iPad, making it much more practical for work, study and everyday communication.<h2>What has changed?</h2>The biggest improvement is that the iPad can now operate independently as a primary device. This means users can access their chats, send messages, make voice and video calls, and receive notifications directly on the tablet. Conversations remain synchronised across linked devices through WhatsApp's multi-device technology while maintaining end-to-end encryption. For users who spend long hours on an iPad, the update removes the need to constantly switch back to a smartphone for messaging.&nbsp;The update reflects changing user habits. Many people now use tablets as their main computing device for work, online classes, entertainment and travel. Having WhatsApp work more independently makes multitasking easier. Users can reply to messages while editing documents, attending video meetings or browsing the web without reaching for another device. It also makes the iPad a more practical option for people who prefer carrying a tablet instead of a laptop or smartphone throughout the day.<h2>Part of Meta's wider multi-device strategy</h2>Meta has spent the past few years expanding WhatsApp's multi-device capabilities.The platform already supports using the same account across multiple phones, computers and web browsers. Adding stronger standalone support for iPad continues that strategy and brings feature parity across Apple's devices. The update also comes as messaging platforms increasingly compete by offering seamless experiences across phones, tablets, desktops and wearable devices.What users should knowThe feature is rolling out gradually through the latest version of WhatsApp for iPad. Once available, users can set up the app directly on the tablet and continue accessing encrypted chats across all their connected devices. For many iPad owners, it removes one of the biggest limitations of using WhatsApp on Apple's larger screen and makes the app a much more complete communication tool.

WhatsApp has updated its iPad app, allowing the tablet to work as a primary device instead of relying on an iPhone. The feature offers a more independent messaging experience while keeping chats synchronised across devices using end-to-end encryption.

WhatsApp has introduced one of its biggest updates for iPad users, allowing the tablet to function as a primary device rather than relying entirely on an iPhone. The change marks another step in Meta's effort to make WhatsApp work more smoothly across multiple devices. Until now, many users treated the iPad version as an extension of their phone. With the latest update, users can set up and use WhatsApp directly on an iPad, making it much more practical for work, study and everyday communication. What has changed? The biggest improvement is that the iPad can now operate independently as a primary device. This means users can access their chats, send messages, make voice and video calls, and receive notifications directly on the tablet. Conversations remain synchronised across linked devices through WhatsApp's multi-device technology while maintaining end-to-end encryption. For users who spend long hours on an iPad, the update removes the need to constantly switch back to a smartphone for messaging. The update reflects changing user habits. Many people now use tablets as their main computing device for work, online classes, entertainment and travel. Having WhatsApp work more independently makes multitasking easier. Users can reply to messages while editing documents, attending video meetings or browsing the web without reaching for another device. It also makes the iPad a more practical option for people who prefer carrying a tablet instead of a laptop or smartphone throughout the day. Part of Meta's wider multi-device strategy Meta has spent the past few years expanding WhatsApp's multi-device capabilities. The platform already supports using the same account across multiple phones, computers and web browsers. Adding stronger standalone support for iPad continues that strategy and brings feature parity across Apple's devices. The update also comes as messaging platforms increasingly compete by offering seamless experiences across phones, tablets, desktops and wearable devices. What users should know The feature is rolling out gradually through the latest version of WhatsApp for iPad. Once available, users can set up the app directly on the tablet and continue accessing encrypted chats across all their connected devices. For many iPad owners, it removes one of the biggest limitations of using WhatsApp on Apple's larger screen and makes the app a much more complete communication tool.

WhatsApp has updated its iPad app, allowing the tablet to work as a primary device instead of relying on an iPhone. The feature offers a more independent messaging experience while keeping chats synchronised across devices using end-to-end encryption.

WhatsApp on iPad gets a major upgrade: You can now use it as a primary device

OpenAI has reportedly explored giving the US government a 5% ownership stake in the company as it prepares for a future public listing and faces growing political scrutiny over artificial intelligence. According to the Financial Times, the proposal has been discussed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman with senior officials in the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The discussions are still in the early stages, and no agreement has been reached. The proposal has attracted attention because it would represent a new way of linking AI development with public ownership.<h2>Why is OpenAI discussing government ownership?</h2>According to the report, OpenAI believes the public should directly benefit from the value created by artificial intelligence. The company has reportedly suggested that leading US AI developers could each contribute 5 per cent of their equity to a special investment vehicle. The idea is inspired by Alaska's Permanent Fund, which invests state oil revenues and distributes annual dividends to residents.Altman has previously argued that AI could create enormous economic value and that ordinary people should share in those gains rather than leaving them entirely with private investors.<h2>Why now?</h2>The discussions come as AI companies face increasing pressure from policymakers. Governments around the world are raising questions about the rapid expansion of AI, including concerns over massive data centre construction, electricity demand, job displacement, cybersecurity risks and the safety of increasingly powerful AI models.OpenAI is also preparing for a public listing while investing billions of dollars in AI infrastructure. Those rising costs have led some investors to question how quickly leading AI companies can become consistently profitable. The proposal is still only under discussion and would likely require approval from the US Congress before becoming reality. Separately, Trump said in June that he planned to meet major AI companies to discuss whether the government should hold ownership stakes in leading AI firms to help address public concerns about the technology. Altman has also proposed creating a US-led international AI forum involving governments and independent experts to establish safety standards, coordinate oversight and reduce pressure for companies to race ahead without sufficient safeguards. If such a model were ever adopted, it could represent one of the biggest changes yet in how advanced AI companies are governed. For now, however, the discussions remain exploratory, and OpenAI has not announced any formal decision.

OpenAI has reportedly discussed giving the US government a 5% ownership stake as part of a broader proposal aimed at sharing AI's economic benefits and easing concerns over the rapid growth of artificial intelligence.

OpenAI has reportedly explored giving the US government a 5% ownership stake in the company as it prepares for a future public listing and faces growing political scrutiny over artificial intelligence. According to the Financial Times, the proposal has been discussed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman with senior officials in the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The discussions are still in the early stages, and no agreement has been reached. The proposal has attracted attention because it would represent a new way of linking AI development with public ownership. Why is OpenAI discussing government ownership? According to the report, OpenAI believes the public should directly benefit from the value created by artificial intelligence. The company has reportedly suggested that leading US AI developers could each contribute 5 per cent of their equity to a special investment vehicle. The idea is inspired by Alaska's Permanent Fund, which invests state oil revenues and distributes annual dividends to residents.Altman has previously argued that AI could create enormous economic value and that ordinary people should share in those gains rather than leaving them entirely with private investors. Why now? The discussions come as AI companies face increasing pressure from policymakers. Governments around the world are raising questions about the rapid expansion of AI, including concerns over massive data centre construction, electricity demand, job displacement, cybersecurity risks and the safety of increasingly powerful AI models.OpenAI is also preparing for a public listing while investing billions of dollars in AI infrastructure. Those rising costs have led some investors to question how quickly leading AI companies can become consistently profitable. The proposal is still only under discussion and would likely require approval from the US Congress before becoming reality. Separately, Trump said in June that he planned to meet major AI companies to discuss whether the government should hold ownership stakes in leading AI firms to help address public concerns about the technology. Altman has also proposed creating a US-led international AI forum involving governments and independent experts to establish safety standards, coordinate oversight and reduce pressure for companies to race ahead without sufficient safeguards. If such a model were ever adopted, it could represent one of the biggest changes yet in how advanced AI companies are governed. For now, however, the discussions remain exploratory, and OpenAI has not announced any formal decision.

OpenAI has reportedly discussed giving the US government a 5% ownership stake as part of a broader proposal aimed at sharing AI's economic benefits and easing concerns over the rapid growth of artificial intelligence.

OpenAI discussed giving US government a 5% stake: What it could mean for the future of AI

GoDaddy has challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that introduced sweeping new rules to tackle fake websites impersonating well-known brands. The company argues the order goes far beyond blocking fraudulent websites and could affect internet privacy, domain registration practices and even global internet governance.&nbsp;The appeal has drawn attention because GoDaddy says the directions could force some domain registrars to reconsider operating in India if they remain unchanged. The case will now be heard by a larger bench of the Delhi High Court on July 16.<h2>What started the dispute?</h2>The case began after more than 20 companies, including Amazon, McDonald's, Microsoft, Xiaomi and Colgate-Palmolive, approached the court over fake websites that copied their names, logos and branding to deceive customers. In December 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered more than 1,100 fraudulent websites to be blocked. However, the court also introduced 14 wider directions for domain registrars to prevent similar abuse in future.&nbsp;Among the key directions are:Registrars should stop offering free privacy protection by default.Domain owner details should be disclosed within 72 hours to anyone with a "legitimate interest".Registrars should prevent registration of domain names that closely resemble protected trademarks.<h2>Why is GoDaddy objecting?</h2>GoDaddy says these rules could expose the personal details of legitimate website owners, including their names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. According to the company, removing privacy-by-default protections could increase risks such as stalking, harassment and phishing attacks. It also argues that the requirement conflicts with privacy principles under India's data protection framework and the European Union's GDPR, both of which support "privacy by default".The company also says domain registrars are not equipped to decide who has a "legitimate interest" in requesting customer information within the court's 72-hour deadline.<h2>Trademark rules raise practical concerns</h2>Another major objection relates to trademark-based restrictions. GoDaddy argues that many trademarks contain common surnames or dictionary words. For example, it says "McDonald" is a widely used surname and preventing all variations could effectively give one company exclusive rights over a common name.Similarly, it argues that protecting trademarks such as HUL could unintentionally restrict many ordinary English words that contain the same letters.<h2>How to stop cyber fraud without weakening online privacy</h2>India has seen a sharp rise in cybercrime. According to government figures cited by Reuters, authorities received 2.4 million cyber fraud complaints last year involving losses of around $2.4 billion. Home Minister Amit Shah recently said one person falls victim to cybercrime every 37 seconds.While the court's directions aim to make it harder for fraudsters to hide behind anonymous domain registrations, GoDaddy argue the measures could disproportionately affect journalists, activists, small businesses and legitimate website owners.

GoDaddy, the world's largest domain registrar, has challenged a Delhi High Court order aimed at tackling fake websites, arguing that the directions could expose legitimate website owners, conflict with global privacy rules and make it difficult for domain registrars to operate in India.

GoDaddy has challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that introduced sweeping new rules to tackle fake websites impersonating well-known brands. The company argues the order goes far beyond blocking fraudulent websites and could affect internet privacy, domain registration practices and even global internet governance. The appeal has drawn attention because GoDaddy says the directions could force some domain registrars to reconsider operating in India if they remain unchanged. The case will now be heard by a larger bench of the Delhi High Court on July 16. What started the dispute? The case began after more than 20 companies, including Amazon, McDonald's, Microsoft, Xiaomi and Colgate-Palmolive, approached the court over fake websites that copied their names, logos and branding to deceive customers. In December 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered more than 1,100 fraudulent websites to be blocked. However, the court also introduced 14 wider directions for domain registrars to prevent similar abuse in future. Among the key directions are: Registrars should stop offering free privacy protection by default. Domain owner details should be disclosed within 72 hours to anyone with a "legitimate interest". Registrars should prevent registration of domain names that closely resemble protected trademarks. Why is GoDaddy objecting? GoDaddy says these rules could expose the personal details of legitimate website owners, including their names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. According to the company, removing privacy-by-default protections could increase risks such as stalking, harassment and phishing attacks. It also argues that the requirement conflicts with privacy principles under India's data protection framework and the European Union's GDPR, both of which support "privacy by default". The company also says domain registrars are not equipped to decide who has a "legitimate interest" in requesting customer information within the court's 72-hour deadline. Trademark rules raise practical concerns Another major objection relates to trademark-based restrictions. GoDaddy argues that many trademarks contain common surnames or dictionary words. For example, it says "McDonald" is a widely used surname and preventing all variations could effectively give one company exclusive rights over a common name. Similarly, it argues that protecting trademarks such as HUL could unintentionally restrict many ordinary English words that contain the same letters. How to stop cyber fraud without weakening online privacy India has seen a sharp rise in cybercrime. According to government figures cited by Reuters, authorities received 2.4 million cyber fraud complaints last year involving losses of around $2.4 billion. Home Minister Amit Shah recently said one person falls victim to cybercrime every 37 seconds. While the court's directions aim to make it harder for fraudsters to hide behind anonymous domain registrations, GoDaddy argue the measures could disproportionately affect journalists, activists, small businesses and legitimate website owners.

GoDaddy, the world's largest domain registrar, has challenged a Delhi High Court order aimed at tackling fake websites, arguing that the directions could expose legitimate website owners, conflict with global privacy rules and make it difficult for domain registrars to operate in India.

GoDaddy challenges Delhi High Court's anti-fake website rules: Here's what's at stake

The competition to build AI-powered smart glasses is becoming more intense, and Samsung appears ready to join the race. A recently released promotional video has sparked speculation that Samsung is working on smart glasses designed to compete with Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses. Although Samsung has not officially announced the device, the wearable briefly appeared in teaser footage, giving technology enthusiasts their clearest hint yet that the company is preparing a new AI product. If launched, the glasses would mark Samsung's biggest step into AI wearables beyond smartphones and smartwatches.<h2>What does the leak reveal?</h2>The leaked video does not reveal the full design or specifications, but it strongly suggests Samsung is developing lightweight smart glasses focused on everyday use rather than bulky mixed-reality headsets.Industry reports indicate the glasses could integrate closely with Samsung's Galaxy ecosystem and Galaxy AI platform. Users may be able to interact using voice commands, receive notifications, capture photos and videos, navigate using real-time directions and access AI-powered assistance without taking out their phone.Samsung has not confirmed these features, and the final product could differ from early expectations.<h2>Why is Samsung entering the AI glasses market?</h2>Technology companies increasingly believe AI wearables could become the next major computing platform. Instead of constantly looking at a smartphone, users may eventually access AI through glasses that understand voice commands, recognise objects, translate conversations and provide useful information in real time. Meta has already gained momentum with its Ray-Ban smart glasses, which combine cameras, speakers and Meta AI into an everyday wearable. Samsung now appears to be preparing its own alternative as demand for AI-powered consumer devices continues to grow.&nbsp;Competition is moving beyond smartphonesThe smart glasses market is becoming one of the most closely watched areas in consumer technology. Alongside Samsung and Meta, companies including Google are investing in Android XR devices, while Apple continues expanding its spatial computing ecosystem through Vision Pro. For Samsung, entering this market could strengthen its AI strategy by extending Galaxy AI beyond phones, tablets and watches into an entirely new category of wearable devices. Although Samsung has yet to announce a launch date or official specifications, the latest leak suggests the company is preparing for a direct challenge in one of technology's fastest-growing segments.&nbsp;

Samsung has hinted at its first AI-powered smart glasses through a leaked promotional video. While the company has not confirmed the device, it could compete directly with Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses as AI wearables become the next major battleground in consumer technology.

The competition to build AI-powered smart glasses is becoming more intense, and Samsung appears ready to join the race. A recently released promotional video has sparked speculation that Samsung is working on smart glasses designed to compete with Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses. Although Samsung has not officially announced the device, the wearable briefly appeared in teaser footage, giving technology enthusiasts their clearest hint yet that the company is preparing a new AI product. If launched, the glasses would mark Samsung's biggest step into AI wearables beyond smartphones and smartwatches. What does the leak reveal? The leaked video does not reveal the full design or specifications, but it strongly suggests Samsung is developing lightweight smart glasses focused on everyday use rather than bulky mixed-reality headsets. Industry reports indicate the glasses could integrate closely with Samsung's Galaxy ecosystem and Galaxy AI platform. Users may be able to interact using voice commands, receive notifications, capture photos and videos, navigate using real-time directions and access AI-powered assistance without taking out their phone. Samsung has not confirmed these features, and the final product could differ from early expectations. Why is Samsung entering the AI glasses market? Technology companies increasingly believe AI wearables could become the next major computing platform. Instead of constantly looking at a smartphone, users may eventually access AI through glasses that understand voice commands, recognise objects, translate conversations and provide useful information in real time. Meta has already gained momentum with its Ray-Ban smart glasses, which combine cameras, speakers and Meta AI into an everyday wearable. Samsung now appears to be preparing its own alternative as demand for AI-powered consumer devices continues to grow. Competition is moving beyond smartphones The smart glasses market is becoming one of the most closely watched areas in consumer technology. Alongside Samsung and Meta, companies including Google are investing in Android XR devices, while Apple continues expanding its spatial computing ecosystem through Vision Pro. For Samsung, entering this market could strengthen its AI strategy by extending Galaxy AI beyond phones, tablets and watches into an entirely new category of wearable devices. Although Samsung has yet to announce a launch date or official specifications, the latest leak suggests the company is preparing for a direct challenge in one of technology's fastest-growing segments.

Samsung has hinted at its first AI-powered smart glasses through a leaked promotional video. While the company has not confirmed the device, it could compete directly with Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses as AI wearables become the next major battleground in consumer technology.

Samsung could soon enter the AI glasses race. Here's what the leaks reveal

The artificial intelligence race is no longer just about building smarter AI models. It is increasingly becoming a battle over the chips that power them. Anthropic, the company behind Claude AI, is reportedly in discussions with Samsung about developing a custom AI chip, according to a report by The Information. While the talks are still at an early stage, the move suggests Anthropic is exploring ways to strengthen its long-term computing strategy as demand for AI hardware continues to grow. The company has not confirmed a partnership. In a statement to TechCrunch, Anthropic said chips from Nvidia, Google and Amazon will continue to play a key role in its AI infrastructure. It declined to comment further on reports about Samsung.<h2>Why does Anthropic want its own AI chip?</h2>Training and running advanced AI models requires enormous computing power. Today, much of that work depends on Nvidia's AI chips, which remain the industry standard. However, growing demand has led to supply constraints and rising costs, prompting several technology companies to develop their own processors. A custom chip could allow Anthropic to optimise hardware specifically for Claude AI, improve energy efficiency, reduce operating costs and gain greater control over its computing infrastructure. According to Reuters, Anthropic had already begun exploring the idea of designing its own AI chips earlier this year.<h2>Samsung could become an important partner</h2>Samsung is one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturers and already works closely with Nvidia on AI hardware. The South Korean company also manufactures advanced chips for other technology firms and has expanded investments in AI chip production. A partnership with Anthropic could strengthen Samsung's position in the rapidly growing AI semiconductor market. However, several important decisions reportedly remain unresolved, including what the chip will be used for, how powerful it will be and how it will fit into Anthropic's server infrastructure.<h2>AI companies are racing to control their hardware</h2>Anthropic is not alone.OpenAI recently announced its custom inference chip, Jalapeño, developed with Broadcom. Google has long relied on its in-house Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), while Amazon designs its own Trainium and Inferentia chips for Amazon Web Services.The shift reflects a broader trend across the AI industry. Instead of relying entirely on Nvidia, companies are building specialised chips that better match their own software and workloads. For Anthropic, a custom processor would represent more than a hardware upgrade. It could become an important step towards reducing dependence on third-party suppliers while preparing for increasingly powerful AI systems in the years ahead.&nbsp;

Anthropic is reportedly discussing a potential partnership with Samsung to develop a custom AI chip.

The artificial intelligence race is no longer just about building smarter AI models. It is increasingly becoming a battle over the chips that power them. Anthropic, the company behind Claude AI, is reportedly in discussions with Samsung about developing a custom AI chip, according to a report by The Information. While the talks are still at an early stage, the move suggests Anthropic is exploring ways to strengthen its long-term computing strategy as demand for AI hardware continues to grow. The company has not confirmed a partnership. In a statement to TechCrunch, Anthropic said chips from Nvidia, Google and Amazon will continue to play a key role in its AI infrastructure. It declined to comment further on reports about Samsung. Why does Anthropic want its own AI chip? Training and running advanced AI models requires enormous computing power. Today, much of that work depends on Nvidia's AI chips, which remain the industry standard. However, growing demand has led to supply constraints and rising costs, prompting several technology companies to develop their own processors. A custom chip could allow Anthropic to optimise hardware specifically for Claude AI, improve energy efficiency, reduce operating costs and gain greater control over its computing infrastructure. According to Reuters, Anthropic had already begun exploring the idea of designing its own AI chips earlier this year. Samsung could become an important partner Samsung is one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturers and already works closely with Nvidia on AI hardware. The South Korean company also manufactures advanced chips for other technology firms and has expanded investments in AI chip production. A partnership with Anthropic could strengthen Samsung's position in the rapidly growing AI semiconductor market. However, several important decisions reportedly remain unresolved, including what the chip will be used for, how powerful it will be and how it will fit into Anthropic's server infrastructure. AI companies are racing to control their hardware Anthropic is not alone. OpenAI recently announced its custom inference chip, Jalapeño, developed with Broadcom. Google has long relied on its in-house Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), while Amazon designs its own Trainium and Inferentia chips for Amazon Web Services. The shift reflects a broader trend across the AI industry. Instead of relying entirely on Nvidia, companies are building specialised chips that better match their own software and workloads. For Anthropic, a custom processor would represent more than a hardware upgrade. It could become an important step towards reducing dependence on third-party suppliers while preparing for increasingly powerful AI systems in the years ahead.

Anthropic is reportedly discussing a potential partnership with Samsung to develop a custom AI chip.

Beyond AI models: Anthropic is exploring a custom AI chip with Samsung. Here's why it matters

Videos flooding social media over the past week show a deeply unsettling scene: a person walks up to a moving e-rickshaw, opens an app on their phone, taps a button — and the vehicle dies. The driver, mid-route, is stranded. Some drivers are filmed crying. Others are seen pushing their vehicles home by hand. The app at the centre of these viral clips is called BAT-BMS, developed by Shenzhen Grenergy Technology in China, and what it has exposed is not just a viral prank — it is a structural vulnerability sitting inside millions of electric vehicles on Indian roads.&nbsp;What Is BAT-BMS?&nbsp;BAT-BMS is a battery management system application built to wirelessly monitor Bluetooth-enabled lithium battery packs. Its intended use is perfectly legitimate: solar installations, marine systems, off-grid power setups. The app lets a technician check a battery's charge level, voltage, current draw, temperature, cycle count, and individual cell health — all over a Bluetooth connection from up to 15 metres away. It was never designed to be pointed at a moving vehicle on a public road. But a design flaw in the batteries used by Indian e-rickshaws made that possible.&nbsp;The Bluetooth Gap Nobody Fixed&nbsp;Millions of e-rickshaws in India run on budget lithium battery packs sourced from Chinese manufacturers. These packs come fitted with a Battery Management System chip that includes a standard safety feature called the discharge switch — a function designed to let mechanics safely cut all power to a battery before performing repairs. The problem is that the Bluetooth module attached to these BMS chips is left entirely unsecured. No username. No password. No authentication layer of any kind. When that unprotected module broadcasts its Bluetooth signal — which it does constantly, within a roughly 15-metre radius — any compatible app within range can connect to it. And once connected, any user can trigger the discharge switch. The motor controller loses power instantly. The vehicle stops.&nbsp;Who Is Affected — And Who Is Not&nbsp;The vulnerability does not apply to every e-rickshaw on the road. Vehicles running on older lead-acid batteries — still very common in India — have no Bluetooth component and are entirely unaffected. E-rickshaws with lithium batteries that use proprietary BMS software, or whose Bluetooth modules have been properly password-protected, are also safe. The danger is specific to the large segment of the market that runs on cheap, mass-produced lithium battery packs with generic BMS chipsets and no security configuration. Experts note that the pranks circulating online are also harder to execute than the short videos suggest — connecting to a moving vehicle in traffic, locating the correct device among multiple signals, and triggering the switch without the driver noticing all require proximity and a few seconds of deliberate action. But that does not make it safe.&nbsp;Banning The App Changes Nothing&nbsp;Following the viral spread of the videos, BAT-BMS has reportedly been removed from Apple's App Store. It remains available on the Google Play Store. But here is the problem with the ban-the-app response: BAT-BMS is not unique. There are thousands of generic Bluetooth BMS monitoring applications available across the App Store, the Play Store, and third-party APK repositories. Any app that can communicate with a standard BMS protocol over Bluetooth can, in principle, trigger the same discharge switch. Removing one app from one store does not close the vulnerability — it just changes which app someone uses to exploit it.&nbsp;AI Can Rebuild It In Under Five Minutes&nbsp;The situation is made structurally worse by the rise of AI-powered app generation tools. Platforms like Mythis and other vibe-coding AI builders can take a simple prompt — ‘build a Bluetooth BMS controller app that connects to lithium battery packs and allows toggling the discharge switch’ — and generate a fully functional Android or iOS application in minutes. No coding expertise required. No app store submission needed; the output can be side-loaded directly onto a phone. This means that even if every existing BAT-BMS clone were simultaneously removed from every platform on earth, a replacement could be operational in the time it takes to make a cup of tea. The app is not the attack surface. The unprotected hardware is.&nbsp;Drivers Pay The Price&nbsp;The human cost of this vulnerability falls entirely on e-rickshaw drivers — some of India's most economically vulnerable gig workers. A driver whose vehicle is remotely stalled mid-route loses the fare, loses time, risks the safety of passengers, and faces the prospect of either pushing a several-hundred-kilogram vehicle through traffic or waiting for a mechanic who may or may not know what has happened. Viral videos show drivers who have no idea why their vehicle has stopped, with no way to diagnose the problem without technical assistance. Tech creator Abhishek Bhatnagar, who investigated the issue, pointed out that the responsibility cannot be placed on drivers: they have no reasonable means to configure Bluetooth security settings on their battery packs. The dealers and manufacturers who supply these vehicles and batteries should have done it before the sale.&nbsp;The Fix Is In The Hardware, Not The App Store&nbsp;Cybersecurity experts watching the situation have been consistent: the only real solution is to secure the BMS hardware itself. Battery packs need to ship with Bluetooth modules that require authentication before any command can be issued. Manufacturers need to set unique passwords before batteries leave the factory floor. Dealers need to verify that security is active before delivering vehicles to drivers. India has no current regulatory framework requiring any of this for EV battery hardware. The government has not issued a formal response as of this writing. What exists is a growing number of viral videos, a lot of crying drivers, and a structural flaw in the connected mobility ecosystem that a five-minute AI-generated app replacement will keep alive indefinitely — long after BAT-BMS itself has been forgotten.

BAT-BMS app went viral for remotely disabling Indian e-rickshaws via Bluetooth. Removed from App Store, but thousands of clone apps exist — and AI tools like Mythis can rebuild one in under 5 minutes.

Videos flooding social media over the past week show a deeply unsettling scene: a person walks up to a moving e-rickshaw, opens an app on their phone, taps a button — and the vehicle dies. The driver, mid-route, is stranded. Some drivers are filmed crying. Others are seen pushing their vehicles home by hand. The app at the centre of these viral clips is called BAT-BMS, developed by Shenzhen Grenergy Technology in China, and what it has exposed is not just a viral prank — it is a structural vulnerability sitting inside millions of electric vehicles on Indian roads. What Is BAT-BMS? BAT-BMS is a battery management system application built to wirelessly monitor Bluetooth-enabled lithium battery packs. Its intended use is perfectly legitimate: solar installations, marine systems, off-grid power setups. The app lets a technician check a battery's charge level, voltage, current draw, temperature, cycle count, and individual cell health — all over a Bluetooth connection from up to 15 metres away. It was never designed to be pointed at a moving vehicle on a public road. But a design flaw in the batteries used by Indian e-rickshaws made that possible. The Bluetooth Gap Nobody Fixed Millions of e-rickshaws in India run on budget lithium battery packs sourced from Chinese manufacturers. These packs come fitted with a Battery Management System chip that includes a standard safety feature called the discharge switch — a function designed to let mechanics safely cut all power to a battery before performing repairs. The problem is that the Bluetooth module attached to these BMS chips is left entirely unsecured. No username. No password. No authentication layer of any kind. When that unprotected module broadcasts its Bluetooth signal — which it does constantly, within a roughly 15-metre radius — any compatible app within range can connect to it. And once connected, any user can trigger the discharge switch. The motor controller loses power instantly. The vehicle stops. Who Is Affected — And Who Is Not The vulnerability does not apply to every e-rickshaw on the road. Vehicles running on older lead-acid batteries — still very common in India — have no Bluetooth component and are entirely unaffected. E-rickshaws with lithium batteries that use proprietary BMS software, or whose Bluetooth modules have been properly password-protected, are also safe. The danger is specific to the large segment of the market that runs on cheap, mass-produced lithium battery packs with generic BMS chipsets and no security configuration. Experts note that the pranks circulating online are also harder to execute than the short videos suggest — connecting to a moving vehicle in traffic, locating the correct device among multiple signals, and triggering the switch without the driver noticing all require proximity and a few seconds of deliberate action. But that does not make it safe. Banning The App Changes Nothing Following the viral spread of the videos, BAT-BMS has reportedly been removed from Apple's App Store. It remains available on the Google Play Store. But here is the problem with the ban-the-app response: BAT-BMS is not unique. There are thousands of generic Bluetooth BMS monitoring applications available across the App Store, the Play Store, and third-party APK repositories. Any app that can communicate with a standard BMS protocol over Bluetooth can, in principle, trigger the same discharge switch. Removing one app from one store does not close the vulnerability — it just changes which app someone uses to exploit it. AI Can Rebuild It In Under Five Minutes The situation is made structurally worse by the rise of AI-powered app generation tools. Platforms like Mythis and other vibe-coding AI builders can take a simple prompt — ‘build a Bluetooth BMS controller app that connects to lithium battery packs and allows toggling the discharge switch’ — and generate a fully functional Android or iOS application in minutes. No coding expertise required. No app store submission needed; the output can be side-loaded directly onto a phone. This means that even if every existing BAT-BMS clone were simultaneously removed from every platform on earth, a replacement could be operational in the time it takes to make a cup of tea. The app is not the attack surface. The unprotected hardware is. Drivers Pay The Price The human cost of this vulnerability falls entirely on e-rickshaw drivers — some of India's most economically vulnerable gig workers. A driver whose vehicle is remotely stalled mid-route loses the fare, loses time, risks the safety of passengers, and faces the prospect of either pushing a several-hundred-kilogram vehicle through traffic or waiting for a mechanic who may or may not know what has happened. Viral videos show drivers who have no idea why their vehicle has stopped, with no way to diagnose the problem without technical assistance. Tech creator Abhishek Bhatnagar, who investigated the issue, pointed out that the responsibility cannot be placed on drivers: they have no reasonable means to configure Bluetooth security settings on their battery packs. The dealers and manufacturers who supply these vehicles and batteries should have done it before the sale. The Fix Is In The Hardware, Not The App Store Cybersecurity experts watching the situation have been consistent: the only real solution is to secure the BMS hardware itself. Battery packs need to ship with Bluetooth modules that require authentication before any command can be issued. Manufacturers need to set unique passwords before batteries leave the factory floor. Dealers need to verify that security is active before delivering vehicles to drivers. India has no current regulatory framework requiring any of this for EV battery hardware. The government has not issued a formal response as of this writing. What exists is a growing number of viral videos, a lot of crying drivers, and a structural flaw in the connected mobility ecosystem that a five-minute AI-generated app replacement will keep alive indefinitely — long after BAT-BMS itself has been forgotten.

A Chinese app called BAT-BMS has gone viral in India for a disturbing reason, strangers are using it to remotely switch off e-rickshaws mid-journey, stranding drivers and wiping out their daily earnings. The app has reportedly been pulled from Apple's App Store. But experts warn that banning the app solves nothing: there are thousands of identical tools already available across app stores, and AI platforms like Mythis can rebuild a clone from scratch in under five minutes. The real flaw isn't in the software. It's baked into millions of cheap, unprotected batteries rolling across India's roads every day.

What is BAT-BMS, Chinese app bringing Indian streets to a standstill?

There is a version of Mark Zuckerberg's career that looks like visionary boldness: the founder who saw mobile before Google, who built a social graph that connected three billion people, who made a $19 billion bet on WhatsApp when everyone thought he was crazy. Then there is the version that has been playing out in real time since 2021 — a CEO who keeps announcing enormous bets on ideas that either collapse into expensive failures or turn out to be things he cannot actually execute. The Metaverse. Meta AI. And now, Meta Compute: the plan to build an Amazon Web Services rival. Each one announced with confidence. Each one, so far, stumbling.&nbsp;The Metaverse: $90 Billion On Cartoon Zoom Calls&nbsp;In late 2021, Zuckerberg renamed the company from Facebook to Meta and declared that the future was the Metaverse — a persistent virtual world where people would work, socialise, and live through VR headsets and digital avatars. Billions poured into Reality Labs, the division responsible for making this happen. The flagship product, Horizon Worlds, launched to widespread mockery. Critics compared it to low-quality cartoon-like virtual meeting rooms — a Zoom call with worse graphics and no obvious reason to use it. The numbers tell the story clearly: Reality Labs has lost approximately $90 billion in total since 2020. Annual losses went from $10 billion in 2021 to $13 billion in 2022, $16 billion in 2023, $17.7 billion in 2024, and $19.2 billion in 2025. In 2026's first quarter alone, the division lost over $4 billion. Despite all of this, the Metaverse generates roughly 1 percent of Meta's total revenue.&nbsp;Meta AI: Exploiting Users, Banning Creators, Getting Facts Wrong&nbsp;When the Metaverse bet started looking like a catastrophe, Zuckerberg pivoted hard to artificial intelligence. Meta AI was positioned as the company's answer to ChatGPT and Google Gemini — a conversational AI assistant embedded across Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and the Quest headsets. The reality has been a different story. Meta's AI moderation systems have been falsely banning thousands of Instagram creators and small businesses, flagging ordinary family photos as child exploitation material, and removing accounts that represent years of work and primary income streams for their owners. A Change.org petition against wrongful Meta AI bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's AI enforcement lacks due process and transparency — meaning bans are made by automated systems with no human review and no meaningful appeals process. Meanwhile, AI-generated bot accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to thrive on the same platform where real human creators are being removed.&nbsp;Now He Wants To Build An AWS&nbsp;With the Metaverse burning money and Meta AI generating headlines for all the wrong reasons, Zuckerberg has announced his latest pivot: Meta Compute, an internal initiative to sell spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. At Meta's shareholder meeting in May 2026, Zuckerberg said entering cloud computing was ‘definitely on the table,’ noting that companies were approaching Meta ‘almost every week’ to buy access to its AI models or spare computing power. The initiative is being led by Meta's infrastructure chief Santosh Janardhan, Daniel Gross of Meta Superintelligence Labs, and Meta President Dina Powell McCormick.&nbsp;The Problem: Meta Has No Spare Compute&nbsp;The immediate problem with Meta's cloud ambitions was identified by analyst Richard Windsor almost as soon as the plan leaked: Meta does not actually have spare compute to sell. Companies like CoreWeave and Nebius exist specifically because Meta — and other major AI companies — need to buy capacity from outside suppliers to meet their own AI workload demands. If Meta is buying compute from CoreWeave and Nebius today, it cannot simultaneously be renting surplus compute to paying customers. Building a real cloud business would require Meta to dramatically increase its data centre and chip capacity — which is exactly what Wolfe Research found when they ran the numbers, concluding that a genuine cloud business would push Meta's 2027 capital expenditure to $200 billion, up from previous estimates of $160 billion, and would likely force the company to raise capital before any cloud revenue materialised.&nbsp;The Copycat Problem&nbsp;The deeper issue is not just whether Meta Compute can work. It is the pattern it fits into. Facebook was built partly by copying features from rivals. Instagram Stories was a direct copy of Snapchat Stories. Reels was built to compete with TikTok after TikTok ate into Facebook's youth audience. WhatsApp's payment features mirror WeChat. The difference is that copying a product feature is relatively cheap and reversible. Copying an entire business model — building a cloud infrastructure giant from scratch to compete with companies that have been doing it for fifteen to twenty years — is a different order of magnitude entirely. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud have decades of enterprise relationships, global infrastructure, and developer ecosystems that Meta does not have. The question the market is increasingly asking is whether Zuckerberg's instinct to respond to every competitive threat by building a replica is the right strategy — or whether it is a habit that has started to cost considerably more than it returns.

From a $90 billion Metaverse failure to Meta AI wrongly banning creators, Zuckerberg's bets keep collapsing. Now he wants to build a cloud rival to AWS — but analysts say Meta has no spare compute.

There is a version of Mark Zuckerberg's career that looks like visionary boldness: the founder who saw mobile before Google, who built a social graph that connected three billion people, who made a $19 billion bet on WhatsApp when everyone thought he was crazy. Then there is the version that has been playing out in real time since 2021 — a CEO who keeps announcing enormous bets on ideas that either collapse into expensive failures or turn out to be things he cannot actually execute. The Metaverse. Meta AI. And now, Meta Compute: the plan to build an Amazon Web Services rival. Each one announced with confidence. Each one, so far, stumbling. The Metaverse: $90 Billion On Cartoon Zoom Calls In late 2021, Zuckerberg renamed the company from Facebook to Meta and declared that the future was the Metaverse — a persistent virtual world where people would work, socialise, and live through VR headsets and digital avatars. Billions poured into Reality Labs, the division responsible for making this happen. The flagship product, Horizon Worlds, launched to widespread mockery. Critics compared it to low-quality cartoon-like virtual meeting rooms — a Zoom call with worse graphics and no obvious reason to use it. The numbers tell the story clearly: Reality Labs has lost approximately $90 billion in total since 2020. Annual losses went from $10 billion in 2021 to $13 billion in 2022, $16 billion in 2023, $17.7 billion in 2024, and $19.2 billion in 2025. In 2026's first quarter alone, the division lost over $4 billion. Despite all of this, the Metaverse generates roughly 1 percent of Meta's total revenue. Meta AI: Exploiting Users, Banning Creators, Getting Facts Wrong When the Metaverse bet started looking like a catastrophe, Zuckerberg pivoted hard to artificial intelligence. Meta AI was positioned as the company's answer to ChatGPT and Google Gemini — a conversational AI assistant embedded across Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and the Quest headsets. The reality has been a different story. Meta's AI moderation systems have been falsely banning thousands of Instagram creators and small businesses, flagging ordinary family photos as child exploitation material, and removing accounts that represent years of work and primary income streams for their owners. A Change.org petition against wrongful Meta AI bans has gathered nearly 56,000 signatures. Meta's own Oversight Board confirmed in June 2026 that the company's AI enforcement lacks due process and transparency — meaning bans are made by automated systems with no human review and no meaningful appeals process. Meanwhile, AI-generated bot accounts with blue tick verification badges continue to thrive on the same platform where real human creators are being removed. Now He Wants To Build An AWS With the Metaverse burning money and Meta AI generating headlines for all the wrong reasons, Zuckerberg has announced his latest pivot: Meta Compute, an internal initiative to sell spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. At Meta's shareholder meeting in May 2026, Zuckerberg said entering cloud computing was ‘definitely on the table,’ noting that companies were approaching Meta ‘almost every week’ to buy access to its AI models or spare computing power. The initiative is being led by Meta's infrastructure chief Santosh Janardhan, Daniel Gross of Meta Superintelligence Labs, and Meta President Dina Powell McCormick. The Problem: Meta Has No Spare Compute The immediate problem with Meta's cloud ambitions was identified by analyst Richard Windsor almost as soon as the plan leaked: Meta does not actually have spare compute to sell. Companies like CoreWeave and Nebius exist specifically because Meta — and other major AI companies — need to buy capacity from outside suppliers to meet their own AI workload demands. If Meta is buying compute from CoreWeave and Nebius today, it cannot simultaneously be renting surplus compute to paying customers. Building a real cloud business would require Meta to dramatically increase its data centre and chip capacity — which is exactly what Wolfe Research found when they ran the numbers, concluding that a genuine cloud business would push Meta's 2027 capital expenditure to $200 billion, up from previous estimates of $160 billion, and would likely force the company to raise capital before any cloud revenue materialised. The Copycat Problem The deeper issue is not just whether Meta Compute can work. It is the pattern it fits into. Facebook was built partly by copying features from rivals. Instagram Stories was a direct copy of Snapchat Stories. Reels was built to compete with TikTok after TikTok ate into Facebook's youth audience. WhatsApp's payment features mirror WeChat. The difference is that copying a product feature is relatively cheap and reversible. Copying an entire business model — building a cloud infrastructure giant from scratch to compete with companies that have been doing it for fifteen to twenty years — is a different order of magnitude entirely. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud have decades of enterprise relationships, global infrastructure, and developer ecosystems that Meta does not have. The question the market is increasingly asking is whether Zuckerberg's instinct to respond to every competitive threat by building a replica is the right strategy — or whether it is a habit that has started to cost considerably more than it returns.

Mark Zuckerberg has spent nearly a decade copying competitors and betting billions on ideas that collapsed. The Metaverse burned through $90 billion and became a punchline. Meta AI has wrongly banned thousands of creators and exploited users' content. Now Zuckerberg is announcing plans to build his own cloud computing business to rival AWS — despite analysts pointing out that Meta doesn't even have spare compute to sell. The pattern is becoming hard to ignore.

'Failed AI, AWS copy': Zuckerberg is destroying his own empire and investors refuse to see it

For most of his career, Mark Zuckerberg's instinct to copy competitors has worked. He copied Snapchat's Stories format — Instagram Stories now has over 500 million daily users. He copied TikTok's short-video format with Reels — it is now one of Meta's fastest-growing revenue products. He spent $19 billion on WhatsApp and turned it into an indispensable global messaging service. The formula was reliable: find what works elsewhere, execute it at scale, win. This week, the market tested whether that formula still holds when the thing being copied is a multi-decade, multi-trillion-dollar enterprise infrastructure business. The verdict, delivered in 48 hours, was not encouraging.&nbsp;Wednesday: The Best Day In Six Months&nbsp;Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Meta was developing an internal initiative called Meta Compute — a plan to rent out spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Wall Street responded enthusiastically. Meta stock jumped 8.8 percent on the day, its strongest single-session gain in six months. Investors liked the narrative: Meta has built one of the world's largest AI infrastructure footprints, spending between $125 billion and $145 billion in capital expenditure in 2026 alone. If even a fraction of that infrastructure could be monetised as a cloud service, the revenue upside was enormous. The stock closed at a fresh recent high. The cloud trade looked like a winner.&nbsp;Thursday: Down 5 Percent. Here Is What Changed&nbsp;Wolfe Research ran the numbers overnight. A genuine cloud computing business — one with the infrastructure, reliability, and enterprise relationships needed to compete with AWS and Azure — would not be built from Meta's existing spare capacity. It would require massive additional investment. Wolfe estimated that Meta's 2027 capital expenditure would need to rise to $200 billion, up from prior estimates of $160 billion, to support a real cloud business. More critically, that investment would come before any meaningful cloud revenue showed up on Meta's income statement. Margins would fall first. And at $200 billion in annual capex, Meta would almost certainly need to raise external capital — a prospect that changes the investment case entirely. Meta shares fell 5 percent on Thursday as the market processed what ‘building an AWS’ actually costs.&nbsp;SoftBank Crashed The Party In 24 Hours&nbsp;The second blow came from an unexpected direction. One day after Meta's cloud plans leaked, SoftBank announced SB Neo — a US venture that will rent out AI chips and data centre capacity, with a target of 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. OpenAI is reportedly an early customer. The compute rental trade, which had looked like a differentiated Meta strategy on Wednesday morning, had become a crowded market by Thursday afternoon. The speed at which a competitor entered the same space — not months later, not years later, but within 24 hours — illustrated exactly how replicable the underlying idea is. Renting compute is not a moat. It is infrastructure economics, and infrastructure economics favours the players who have been doing it longest.&nbsp;The Core Problem: Meta Is A Compute Buyer, Not A Seller&nbsp;Analyst Richard Windsor identified what may be the most fundamental flaw in the Meta Compute thesis: Meta does not have spare compute to sell. Today, Meta buys GPU and data centre capacity from companies like CoreWeave and Nebius because Meta's own AI workloads exceed its in-house infrastructure. A company that is a net buyer of compute capacity cannot simultaneously position itself as a compute vendor without building an entirely new layer of infrastructure on top of what it already needs for its own operations. The plan, as Windsor described it, conflates having large infrastructure with having surplus infrastructure — and those are very different things.&nbsp;Collateral Damage: CoreWeave, Nebius, And The Chip Names&nbsp;The market's reaction was not limited to Meta. CoreWeave — which currently supplies AI compute capacity to Meta — fell 14 percent on Wednesday as investors concluded that a Meta cloud business would eventually reduce Meta's dependence on outside suppliers. CoreWeave's junk-rated bonds began selling off. By Thursday, the stock had fallen further, with more than $7.5 billion in combined market capitalisation erased across the two sessions. Nebius, another compute supplier, dropped 17 percent. Chip-adjacent names including Micron were dragged into the selloff as the market recalibrated who wins and who loses if Meta becomes both a compute consumer and a compute competitor.&nbsp;What $200 Billion In Capex Really Means&nbsp;The number that should concern Meta shareholders most is not the stock move. It is the capex trajectory. A company already spending $125 billion to $145 billion annually on infrastructure, now potentially facing a $200 billion capital expenditure requirement, with margins under pressure before new revenue arrives, and a possible capital raise on the horizon — that is not a cloud opportunity. That is a spending spiral. At that level of capital commitment, the pressure to find offsetting savings elsewhere becomes intense. Spending pressure of that magnitude is historically how hiring freezes start, how restructuring programmes are launched, and how layoff announcements get prepared. For Meta's tens of thousands of employees, the Meta Compute announcement may have felt like good news on Wednesday. The Wolfe Research note made Thursday considerably less comfortable.

Meta jumped 8.8% on Meta Compute cloud news, then fell 5% next day. Wolfe Research: $200B capex needed. SoftBank launched a rival in 24 hours. CoreWeave lost $7.5B in market cap. Full breakdown.

For most of his career, Mark Zuckerberg's instinct to copy competitors has worked. He copied Snapchat's Stories format — Instagram Stories now has over 500 million daily users. He copied TikTok's short-video format with Reels — it is now one of Meta's fastest-growing revenue products. He spent $19 billion on WhatsApp and turned it into an indispensable global messaging service. The formula was reliable: find what works elsewhere, execute it at scale, win. This week, the market tested whether that formula still holds when the thing being copied is a multi-decade, multi-trillion-dollar enterprise infrastructure business. The verdict, delivered in 48 hours, was not encouraging. Wednesday: The Best Day In Six Months Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Meta was developing an internal initiative called Meta Compute — a plan to rent out spare AI computing capacity to outside customers and compete directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. Wall Street responded enthusiastically. Meta stock jumped 8.8 percent on the day, its strongest single-session gain in six months. Investors liked the narrative: Meta has built one of the world's largest AI infrastructure footprints, spending between $125 billion and $145 billion in capital expenditure in 2026 alone. If even a fraction of that infrastructure could be monetised as a cloud service, the revenue upside was enormous. The stock closed at a fresh recent high. The cloud trade looked like a winner. Thursday: Down 5 Percent. Here Is What Changed Wolfe Research ran the numbers overnight. A genuine cloud computing business — one with the infrastructure, reliability, and enterprise relationships needed to compete with AWS and Azure — would not be built from Meta's existing spare capacity. It would require massive additional investment. Wolfe estimated that Meta's 2027 capital expenditure would need to rise to $200 billion, up from prior estimates of $160 billion, to support a real cloud business. More critically, that investment would come before any meaningful cloud revenue showed up on Meta's income statement. Margins would fall first. And at $200 billion in annual capex, Meta would almost certainly need to raise external capital — a prospect that changes the investment case entirely. Meta shares fell 5 percent on Thursday as the market processed what ‘building an AWS’ actually costs. SoftBank Crashed The Party In 24 Hours The second blow came from an unexpected direction. One day after Meta's cloud plans leaked, SoftBank announced SB Neo — a US venture that will rent out AI chips and data centre capacity, with a target of 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2030. OpenAI is reportedly an early customer. The compute rental trade, which had looked like a differentiated Meta strategy on Wednesday morning, had become a crowded market by Thursday afternoon. The speed at which a competitor entered the same space — not months later, not years later, but within 24 hours — illustrated exactly how replicable the underlying idea is. Renting compute is not a moat. It is infrastructure economics, and infrastructure economics favours the players who have been doing it longest. The Core Problem: Meta Is A Compute Buyer, Not A Seller Analyst Richard Windsor identified what may be the most fundamental flaw in the Meta Compute thesis: Meta does not have spare compute to sell. Today, Meta buys GPU and data centre capacity from companies like CoreWeave and Nebius because Meta's own AI workloads exceed its in-house infrastructure. A company that is a net buyer of compute capacity cannot simultaneously position itself as a compute vendor without building an entirely new layer of infrastructure on top of what it already needs for its own operations. The plan, as Windsor described it, conflates having large infrastructure with having surplus infrastructure — and those are very different things. Collateral Damage: CoreWeave, Nebius, And The Chip Names The market's reaction was not limited to Meta. CoreWeave — which currently supplies AI compute capacity to Meta — fell 14 percent on Wednesday as investors concluded that a Meta cloud business would eventually reduce Meta's dependence on outside suppliers. CoreWeave's junk-rated bonds began selling off. By Thursday, the stock had fallen further, with more than $7.5 billion in combined market capitalisation erased across the two sessions. Nebius, another compute supplier, dropped 17 percent. Chip-adjacent names including Micron were dragged into the selloff as the market recalibrated who wins and who loses if Meta becomes both a compute consumer and a compute competitor. What $200 Billion In Capex Really Means The number that should concern Meta shareholders most is not the stock move. It is the capex trajectory. A company already spending $125 billion to $145 billion annually on infrastructure, now potentially facing a $200 billion capital expenditure requirement, with margins under pressure before new revenue arrives, and a possible capital raise on the horizon — that is not a cloud opportunity. That is a spending spiral. At that level of capital commitment, the pressure to find offsetting savings elsewhere becomes intense. Spending pressure of that magnitude is historically how hiring freezes start, how restructuring programmes are launched, and how layoff announcements get prepared. For Meta's tens of thousands of employees, the Meta Compute announcement may have felt like good news on Wednesday. The Wolfe Research note made Thursday considerably less comfortable.

Meta stock surged 8.8 percent on Wednesday — its best single day in six months — after Bloomberg reported plans for ‘Meta Compute,’ a cloud business to sell spare AI capacity. By Thursday it was down 5 percent. Wolfe Research found that a real cloud business would push Meta's 2027 capex to $200 billion. SoftBank announced a competing product the very next day. And an analyst pointed out that Meta doesn't actually have spare compute to sell. Wall Street's one-day love affair with the idea lasted exactly 24 hours.

Zuckerberg built a fortune copying others! This time he is failing miserably

Microsoft has announced a new AI-focused business called Microsoft Frontier Company, backed by an initial investment of $2.5 billion, as the tech giant shifts its attention from simply providing AI models to helping companies successfully deploy them. The announcement comes as businesses around the world increase spending on artificial intelligence but struggle to identify which models deliver the best results for their operations. Microsoft says the new company will help customers integrate AI faster while improving returns on their investments. Reuters first reported the launch.<h2>Why Microsoft is creating Frontier Company</h2>Over the past two years, many companies have experimented with AI using services from firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic. However, many enterprises are now using multiple AI models instead of relying on a single provider. Microsoft says Frontier Company will help businesses select AI models, combine them with their own internal data and deploy AI systems that suit their specific needs. Customers will also retain ownership of the AI solutions built for them rather than sharing those improvements with Microsoft.<h2>Businesses want flexibility, not just one AI model</h2>According to Microsoft Commercial Business CEO Judson Althoff, the company has learnt important lessons from the early days of Copilot. He said Microsoft initially depended too heavily on OpenAI's models. As more competitors such as Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude and open-source AI models entered the market, businesses increasingly demanded the flexibility to switch between different AI systems. Instead of locking customers into one model, Frontier Company is designed to support AI tools from Microsoft as well as external providers, allowing businesses to choose the technology that best fits their work.<h2>Enterprise AI enters a new stage</h2>The move reflects a broader change in the AI industry. Rather than asking which chatbot is the smartest, businesses are increasingly focused on how AI can improve productivity, reduce costs and generate measurable business value. Microsoft joins companies such as Palantir and Amazon Web Services, which also provide consulting and technical support to help enterprises deploy AI at scale. The company has already lined up customers including Unilever and Novo Nordisk, signalling that demand for enterprise AI services continues to grow across industries. As AI adoption expands, experts believe success will depend less on using a single powerful model and more on combining the right AI tools with company data, security requirements and business goals.&nbsp;

Microsoft has launched Frontier Company with a $2.5 billion investment to help businesses deploy AI more effectively. The new venture will support Microsoft and third-party AI models, reflecting a growing shift towards flexible enterprise AI solutions.

Microsoft has announced a new AI-focused business called Microsoft Frontier Company, backed by an initial investment of $2.5 billion, as the tech giant shifts its attention from simply providing AI models to helping companies successfully deploy them. The announcement comes as businesses around the world increase spending on artificial intelligence but struggle to identify which models deliver the best results for their operations. Microsoft says the new company will help customers integrate AI faster while improving returns on their investments. Reuters first reported the launch. Why Microsoft is creating Frontier Company Over the past two years, many companies have experimented with AI using services from firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic. However, many enterprises are now using multiple AI models instead of relying on a single provider. Microsoft says Frontier Company will help businesses select AI models, combine them with their own internal data and deploy AI systems that suit their specific needs. Customers will also retain ownership of the AI solutions built for them rather than sharing those improvements with Microsoft. Businesses want flexibility, not just one AI model According to Microsoft Commercial Business CEO Judson Althoff, the company has learnt important lessons from the early days of Copilot. He said Microsoft initially depended too heavily on OpenAI's models. As more competitors such as Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude and open-source AI models entered the market, businesses increasingly demanded the flexibility to switch between different AI systems. Instead of locking customers into one model, Frontier Company is designed to support AI tools from Microsoft as well as external providers, allowing businesses to choose the technology that best fits their work. Enterprise AI enters a new stage The move reflects a broader change in the AI industry. Rather than asking which chatbot is the smartest, businesses are increasingly focused on how AI can improve productivity, reduce costs and generate measurable business value. Microsoft joins companies such as Palantir and Amazon Web Services, which also provide consulting and technical support to help enterprises deploy AI at scale. The company has already lined up customers including Unilever and Novo Nordisk, signalling that demand for enterprise AI services continues to grow across industries. As AI adoption expands, experts believe success will depend less on using a single powerful model and more on combining the right AI tools with company data, security requirements and business goals.

Microsoft has launched Frontier Company with a $2.5 billion investment to help businesses deploy AI more effectively. The new venture will support Microsoft and third-party AI models, reflecting a growing shift towards flexible enterprise AI solutions.

Microsoft bets $2.5 billion on new AI company to help businesses deploy AI

technology

Technology, News on Technology, stories on Technology, articles on Technology, Technology stories at Wion, Technology news, Technology latest news

technology

Microsoft reportedly replaces ChatGPT and Claude models to reduce AI spending

Blue Origin's first funding round signals a new chapter in the space race

From driver monitoring to emergency braking: EU introduces new car safety rules

Apple's latest investment could reshape its US supply chain. Here's how

Elon Musk calls Grok 4.5 an 'Opus-class' AI model. Here's what that means

AI and mass murder: Why British Columbia lawsuit against OpenAI matters

Instagram will now let anyone generate deepfake of your face without asking you

Meta faces $1.4 Trillion in penalties in teen mental health trial

US is using Anthropic's Mythos for auditing govt code. What does it mean?

Microsoft lay off 4,800 employees as Xbox undergoes major restructuring

‘We cannot vibe-code future’: UN chief calls for global AI rules

Filmmaker Medha Jaishankar champions AI health tech for marginalised women

The big data centre debate: Are they optional?

Apple's secret chip: The real reason iPhones stay smooth for years

The iPhone that made Apple billions: Which Apple model sold the most units ever?

Buying an iPhone? Here's why it could save you money later

Why does Apple sell fewer phones than Android but make more money?

WhatsApp on iPad gets a major upgrade: You can now use it as a primary device

Sam Altman's latest AI proposal could reshape government oversight

GoDaddy challenges Delhi High Court's anti-fake website rules

Samsung could soon enter the AI glasses race. Here's what the leaks reveal

Beyond AI models: Anthropic is exploring a custom AI chip with Samsung

BAT-BMS: The App Killing E-Rickshaws And Why It Can't Be Banned

Zuckerberg Wants To Copy Everything And Is Failing At All Of It

Zuckerberg built a fortune copying others! This time he is losing badly..

Microsoft bets $2.5 billion on new AI company to help businesses deploy AI