Apple's New iPhones, Watches Are Coming at a Tough Time for Consumers

17 February 2016, Bavaria, Munich: The Apple logo shines on the facade of an Apple Store. (dpa)
17 February 2016, Bavaria, Munich: The Apple logo shines on the facade of an Apple Store. (dpa)
TT

Apple's New iPhones, Watches Are Coming at a Tough Time for Consumers

17 February 2016, Bavaria, Munich: The Apple logo shines on the facade of an Apple Store. (dpa)
17 February 2016, Bavaria, Munich: The Apple logo shines on the facade of an Apple Store. (dpa)

Apple Inc on Wednesday is expected to unveil a new range of iPhone 14 models and Apple Watches that will test how willing consumers are to upgrade gadgets in the face of inflation and economic gloom.

Analysts expect Apple to announce that the latest iPhones can send emergency messages using satellites at the event titled "Far Out" at its Cupertino, California, headquarters. Beyond that, analysts expect a family of iPhone 14 models with incremental upgrades - slightly better cameras, processor chips and, critically for Apple's bottom line, prices $100 or more higher than last year's models.

To be sure, the world's most valuable listed company will also likely keep some older or less advanced models at lower prices, and to date Apple's relatively affluent fan base has shown more willingness to keep spending despite high inflation. But the new models will be Apple's sales anchor during holiday shopping seasons in Western markets during a turbulent period. "Apple is not immune to economic weakness," Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi wrote in note to clients.

This year's iPhones may have the ability to send emergency messages through a satellite internet connection when WiFi and mobile networks are not available. The messaging functions would likely be rudimentary, and other companies are working on similar functions. SpaceX founder Elon Musk said last month T-Mobile will use its satellites to connect phones directly to the internet.

Bob O'Donnell of TECHnalysis Research said that the peace of mind from being able to send emergency messages could spur Apple users to upgrade their phones for the satellite feature.

"Even though it's not something you do every day, it'll change your perspective on what you do with your phone," he said.

Analysts also expect Apple to show a new range of Apple Watches, including an upgraded budget model called the SE and a Series 8 Watch. They also expect a new high-end watch called the Apple Watch Pro that will likely include new features for athletes, taking aim at rivals such as Garmin Ltd.

But while accessories like the Apple Watch have driven incremental sales from Apple's existing user base, the iPhone remains the bedrock of its business with 52.4% of sales in its most recent fiscal year. Investors have been watching for Apple's next major product category since the Apple Watch launched in 2015.

Some analysts believe Apple might give a preview of that future by showing a mixed-reality headset on Wednesday. The device is expected to have cameras that pass-through view of the outside world to the wearer while overlaying digital objects on the physical world. Analysts do not expect the device to go on sale until next year at the earliest.

An early preview would be rare for Apple, which keeps its product plans secret until just before devices hit the market. A rival headset called Project Cambria is in the works from Meta Platforms Inc, which is spending billions of dollars on the project.

But in order to have compelling apps for a new headset, Apple might need to give developers time to become familiar with it. "Developing for a new and radically different type of platform is going to take people a lot longer," O'Donnell said.



Meta, TikTok, X Lose Legal Challenge against UK Watchdog over Online Safety Data Demands

Meta logo (Reuters)
Meta logo (Reuters)
TT

Meta, TikTok, X Lose Legal Challenge against UK Watchdog over Online Safety Data Demands

Meta logo (Reuters)
Meta logo (Reuters)

Meta, TikTok and X on Friday lost a legal challenge against British regulator Ofcom over the amount of information it is demanding they provide under Britain's nascent online safety regime.

The challenge is one of the first in relation ‌to the ‌2023 Online Safety Act, ‌which ⁠sets tougher standards ⁠for platforms such as TikTok, X and Meta's Facebook and Instagram with the aim to protect children from harmful and illegal content, reported Reuters.

Ofcom has been gradually ⁠implementing the regime, with ‌its requirements backed ‌up by the threat of fines ‌of up to 10% of ‌a company's global turnover for the most serious breaches.

In February, it issued information notices requesting detailed content moderation ‌metrics from the tech companies, including data on how ⁠many ⁠posts were removed or had visibility restricted, and how many users were exposed to harmful content.

Meta, TikTok and X argued the notices create unprecedented regulatory burdens, but their case was rejected by London's High Court.

None of the companies, nor Ofcom, immediately responded to requests for comment.


US Regulator Bans Chinese Labs from Electronics Testing

A person uses his cellphone on a street in Beijing, China, 29 October 2026. (EPA)
A person uses his cellphone on a street in Beijing, China, 29 October 2026. (EPA)
TT

US Regulator Bans Chinese Labs from Electronics Testing

A person uses his cellphone on a street in Beijing, China, 29 October 2026. (EPA)
A person uses his cellphone on a street in Beijing, China, 29 October 2026. (EPA)

A US regulator voted Thursday to ban Chinese labs from testing electronic devices ranging from smartphones to cameras for use in the United States.

The move, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says aims to boost security, comes a year after the agency adopted rules to ban test labs "owned or controlled by foreign adversaries."

Around 82 percent of certified devices in the United States are tested in recognized labs in China, the FCC estimates.

"These labs are a critical gateway into American communications infrastructure. And their privileged role gives them access to sensitive and confidential information about electronic products often months before the devices enter the market," the FCC said in a statement.

The ban, which will come into force in 2028, applies to test labs and certification bodies in countries that do not have a mutual recognition agreement with the United States, the agency said.

China does not have such a pact with the FCC, according to its website.

The agency said it began investigating "bad labs" after discovering in 2024 that Chinese tech giant Huawei was running an FCC-recognized Test Lab.

The FCC had previously blacklisted telecommunications equipment made by Huawei and several other Chinese firms over security concerns.

The latest ban would also protect the US technology industry by fighting against the "offshoring of electronics manufacturing, which is often collocated where devices are tested", it added.

Beijing criticized the policy which it said harmed trade between the world's top two economies.

"The US has overstretched the concept of national security, abused state power and unjustifiably cracked down on Chinese companies," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said at a regular briefing on Friday.

"The US actions seriously hinder normal economic and trade exchanges between Chinese and US businesses and run counter to the interests of all parties, including US companies and consumers."

He said Beijing would "take necessary measures" to safeguard its interests.

The FCC has been taking steps to separate Chinese entities from US supply chains.

In March, the regulator barred authorizations of new consumer routers made in foreign countries, also on national security grounds.


Shock, Vindication, Regret: Scientists React to AI Roiling Life's Work

OpenAI and Anthropic each said one of their AI models had disproved the 'exponential time hypothesis'. Nicolas TUCAT / AFP
OpenAI and Anthropic each said one of their AI models had disproved the 'exponential time hypothesis'. Nicolas TUCAT / AFP
TT

Shock, Vindication, Regret: Scientists React to AI Roiling Life's Work

OpenAI and Anthropic each said one of their AI models had disproved the 'exponential time hypothesis'. Nicolas TUCAT / AFP
OpenAI and Anthropic each said one of their AI models had disproved the 'exponential time hypothesis'. Nicolas TUCAT / AFP

For decades, three computer scientists built their careers around an idea about the limits of what computers can do.

Artificial intelligence may now have shown it to be wrong: OpenAI and Anthropic each said on Monday one of their AI models had disproved the "exponential time hypothesis" (ETH).

The hypothesis holds that some problems are so hard that computers can solve them only by trying nearly every possible answer. Hundreds of studies in computer science and biology rely on it.

The claim is the latest in a string of AI results that have shaken academia, setting off soul-searching, most notably among mathematicians, over the value of human expertise and the future of their profession.

Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi of the University of California San Diego first proposed the hypothesis around 25 years ago.

Ryan Williams of MIT, a leading researcher in the field, had long publicly doubted it.

The three are now helping organize an independent review of the claims from the AI companies.

They shared their initial reactions with AFP. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

- 'Surprise' -

Q: How did you feel when you learned that a machine may have overturned this hypothesis?

Ramamohan Paturi: My first reaction was surprise. ETH has shaped a great deal of research over the past three decades. But the research built around it would not simply disappear.

Ryan Williams: I did not fully believe the hypothesis, and I'm on the record as a prominent skeptic. So I felt vindicated.

Russell Impagliazzo: I'm afraid I am less cheerful about this than the others. I would have much preferred it to be discovered by a human who could explain their thought process. And I'd like to have shaken the (actual) hand of the person who disproved ETH.

- 'Major revolution' -

Q: What is left for human researchers facing the machine? What would you tell a student?

Paturi: These breakthroughs extend the frontier of research, but I believe shaping that frontier and moving it forward remain within human capacity and creativity. I would encourage young students to join. They should learn to use these tools while developing their own judgment.

Williams: I think we're starting to experience a major revolution in the field, and it is absolutely worth going into. Some people may not want to work in the field anymore; others may now feel motivated to.

Impagliazzo: I'm less confident. The rate of change is amazing. Until now, the same researchers mostly did both the glamorous part of research, solving, and the less glamorous part, verifying and explaining. Now it looks like much or most of the first will be done by AI, leaving humans the second -- until next year, when AI progresses further. I have no idea what research will be like next year.

- 'Worrisome' -

Q: These results come from models owned by companies, which decide what to publish and when. Does that worry you?

Paturi: Concentrated access to powerful research tools raises serious questions about who can participate, who gets early access and who shapes the research agenda. Publicly releasing a proof is important, but it does not provide equal access to the tools that produced it. A company's announcement cannot substitute for the community's assessment.

Williams: Yes, it is worrisome. It's on the AI companies to be responsible about their power, and I think they're aware of that.

Impagliazzo: When a human solves a problem, they share not just the solution but the thought process that led to it, which is often more valuable than the solution itself. Access to the AI model itself is the closest we can get to that.

- Possibilities -

Q: If confirmed, what would this result change for ordinary people?

Williams: It's still a theoretical result, but it opens up the possibility of much more efficient ways of computing in an enormous variety of scenarios.

Impagliazzo: There will be no immediate consequences for almost all people (as opposed to me and my friends!). But a first breakthrough is usually followed by improvements and generalizations, so this might eventually lead to better data analysis tools in many branches of science. The current result does not represent a security threat, but future extensions might require stronger encryption.