verge-rss

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

TikTok — an app used to by 170 million Americans — now has its future resting in the hands of three judges. The company fought for its life during oral arguments on Monday only for the judges to express a great deal of skepticism towards TikTok’s case.
Attorneys for TikTok and a group of creators suing to block the law popularly known as “the TikTok ban” made their case before a panel of three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Though the bill seeks a divestment of the app from its Chinese owner ByteDance by a January 19th deadline, the company says the ultimatum is in truth a ban that would stifle the speech of TikTok and its creators, and improperly limit the information Americans are able to receive.
The Department of Justice defended the law, saying that it takes appropriate, targeted action against a company that poses a national security risk because of its alleged exposure to a foreign adversary government. The judges — Obama appointee and Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao, and Reagan appointee Judge Douglas Ginsburg — seemed to lob more questions toward counsel for TikTok than the DOJ. During TikTok’s arguments, both Rao and Ginsburg seemed at times to squint or rest a hand on the side of their head. Srinivasan played his cards closest to the chest, directing questions to both sides and nodding along to answers from both.
The DC Circuit is an appeals court that tends to deal with cases involving federal agencies. The fact that the bill is an act of Congress, rather an agency action, was not lost on the judges. Rao told TikTok’s counsel Andrew Pincus that Congress is “not the EPA” and doesn’t have to enact findings like an agency — their findings are borne out by the fact they were able to pass the law. Later, Rao said that many of Pincus’ arguments sounded like he wants the panel to treat Congress “like an agency.”
The judges questioned the practicality of requiring a lesser means of action from TikTok, such as disclosures from the company about their data and content moderation practices. That would depend on trusting the very company the government is worried is a pawn of a covert foreign adversary, Rao and Srinivasan pointed out.
Ginsburg, who didn’t pipe up until toward the end of TikTok’s argument, pushed back on Pincus’ assertion that the law singles out the company. Instead, Ginsburg said, it describes a category of companies controlled by foreign adversaries that could be subject to the law, and specifically names one where there’s an immediate need based on years of government negotiations that have failed to go anywhere.
Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on a behalf of a group of creator plaintiffs, said that upholding the law could ultimately lead to other limits on Americans’ ability to produce for other media companies with foreign owners, from Politico to Spotify to the BBC. Fisher said the content manipulation justifications the government gave — including some lawmakers’ fears about TikTok’s content recommendations around the war in Gaza — “taints the entire act.”
But the judges also questioned whether creators really have a First Amendment interest in who owns TikTok. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s musings in the recent NetChoice case about how foreign ownership could change the First Amendment calculus also came up, and the judges noted the law is about foreign adversary nations, not just foreign ownership broadly.
Still, the judges also pushed DOJ’s Daniel Tenny on whether the US entity TikTok, Inc. has First Amendment rights. Tenny said it does, but they’re “incidental” in this case because they’re not the target of the law.
The government has sought to show the court certain classified documents while at the same time withholding them from TikTok, because it fears exposing them would further harm the very national security risks the government is worried about. These documents did not come up during the roughly two hours of oral arguments. Instead, the attorneys and judges focused on what level of First Amendment scrutiny should be applied to the case, and how to assess the role of a foreign owner over TikTok.
Kiera Spann, a TikTok creator and petitioner in the suit, told reporters during a press conference after the arguments that she found the platform to be “the least-censored and most authentic source of information,” and said she’s not found the kinds of conversations she’s had on TikTok on other social media platforms. Jacob Huebert, president of Liberty Justice Center which represents separate petitioner BASED Politics, told The Verge outside the courthouse he was “not surprised” the judges had “challenging questions for both sides,” including ones for the DOJ about how far the foreign ownership question could go when it comes to speech. Huebert called it a “mistake” to read too much into the number and type of questions.
An estimated 150 people packed the courtroom Monday to hear from the judges who could decide TikTok’s fate. Whatever the outcome, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court — but the clock is still running out with the January 19th deadline for divestment fast approaching.

Illustration by Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos from Getty Images

TikTok — an app used to by 170 million Americans — now has its future resting in the hands of three judges. The company fought for its life during oral arguments on Monday only for the judges to express a great deal of skepticism towards TikTok’s case.

Attorneys for TikTok and a group of creators suing to block the law popularly known as “the TikTok ban” made their case before a panel of three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Though the bill seeks a divestment of the app from its Chinese owner ByteDance by a January 19th deadline, the company says the ultimatum is in truth a ban that would stifle the speech of TikTok and its creators, and improperly limit the information Americans are able to receive.

The Department of Justice defended the law, saying that it takes appropriate, targeted action against a company that poses a national security risk because of its alleged exposure to a foreign adversary government. The judges — Obama appointee and Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao, and Reagan appointee Judge Douglas Ginsburg — seemed to lob more questions toward counsel for TikTok than the DOJ. During TikTok’s arguments, both Rao and Ginsburg seemed at times to squint or rest a hand on the side of their head. Srinivasan played his cards closest to the chest, directing questions to both sides and nodding along to answers from both.

The DC Circuit is an appeals court that tends to deal with cases involving federal agencies. The fact that the bill is an act of Congress, rather an agency action, was not lost on the judges. Rao told TikTok’s counsel Andrew Pincus that Congress is “not the EPA” and doesn’t have to enact findings like an agency — their findings are borne out by the fact they were able to pass the law. Later, Rao said that many of Pincus’ arguments sounded like he wants the panel to treat Congress “like an agency.”

The judges questioned the practicality of requiring a lesser means of action from TikTok, such as disclosures from the company about their data and content moderation practices. That would depend on trusting the very company the government is worried is a pawn of a covert foreign adversary, Rao and Srinivasan pointed out.

Ginsburg, who didn’t pipe up until toward the end of TikTok’s argument, pushed back on Pincus’ assertion that the law singles out the company. Instead, Ginsburg said, it describes a category of companies controlled by foreign adversaries that could be subject to the law, and specifically names one where there’s an immediate need based on years of government negotiations that have failed to go anywhere.

Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on a behalf of a group of creator plaintiffs, said that upholding the law could ultimately lead to other limits on Americans’ ability to produce for other media companies with foreign owners, from Politico to Spotify to the BBC. Fisher said the content manipulation justifications the government gave — including some lawmakers’ fears about TikTok’s content recommendations around the war in Gaza — “taints the entire act.”

But the judges also questioned whether creators really have a First Amendment interest in who owns TikTok. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s musings in the recent NetChoice case about how foreign ownership could change the First Amendment calculus also came up, and the judges noted the law is about foreign adversary nations, not just foreign ownership broadly.

Still, the judges also pushed DOJ’s Daniel Tenny on whether the US entity TikTok, Inc. has First Amendment rights. Tenny said it does, but they’re “incidental” in this case because they’re not the target of the law.

The government has sought to show the court certain classified documents while at the same time withholding them from TikTok, because it fears exposing them would further harm the very national security risks the government is worried about. These documents did not come up during the roughly two hours of oral arguments. Instead, the attorneys and judges focused on what level of First Amendment scrutiny should be applied to the case, and how to assess the role of a foreign owner over TikTok.

Kiera Spann, a TikTok creator and petitioner in the suit, told reporters during a press conference after the arguments that she found the platform to be “the least-censored and most authentic source of information,” and said she’s not found the kinds of conversations she’s had on TikTok on other social media platforms. Jacob Huebert, president of Liberty Justice Center which represents separate petitioner BASED Politics, told The Verge outside the courthouse he was “not surprised” the judges had “challenging questions for both sides,” including ones for the DOJ about how far the foreign ownership question could go when it comes to speech. Huebert called it a “mistake” to read too much into the number and type of questions.

An estimated 150 people packed the courtroom Monday to hear from the judges who could decide TikTok’s fate. Whatever the outcome, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court — but the clock is still running out with the January 19th deadline for divestment fast approaching.

Read More 

Illustration by Nick Barclay / The Verge

iOS 18 introduces more customization and paves the way for Apple Intelligence. Apple has released iOS 18 — plus iPadOS 18, macOS Sequoia, watchOS 11, and other new updates — bringing several key updates to how the company’s devices operate and setting the stage for generative AI features.
iPadOS 18 has a calculator app and can solve math equations in notes, watchOS is keeping an eye out for sleep apnea, and now your iPhone can even message Androids with RCS.
Next month, Apple will beta test its first round of Apple Intelligence features in the iOS 18.1 update. We’ll be able to type to Siri and see a new animation, see AI-summarized notifications, and test new writing tools. However, other new abilities like image generation and built-in access to ChatGPT are further off, due to arrive as the company continues updating its software over the coming months.
Read on for all the news about Apple’s latest set of operating system updates.

Illustration by Nick Barclay / The Verge

iOS 18 introduces more customization and paves the way for Apple Intelligence.

Apple has released iOS 18 — plus iPadOS 18, macOS Sequoia, watchOS 11, and other new updates — bringing several key updates to how the company’s devices operate and setting the stage for generative AI features.

iPadOS 18 has a calculator app and can solve math equations in notes, watchOS is keeping an eye out for sleep apnea, and now your iPhone can even message Androids with RCS.

Next month, Apple will beta test its first round of Apple Intelligence features in the iOS 18.1 update. We’ll be able to type to Siri and see a new animation, see AI-summarized notifications, and test new writing tools. However, other new abilities like image generation and built-in access to ChatGPT are further off, due to arrive as the company continues updating its software over the coming months.

Read on for all the news about Apple’s latest set of operating system updates.

Read More 

Image: The Verge

OpenAI is turning its Safety and Security Committee into an independent “Board oversight committee” that has the authority to delay model launches over safety concerns, according to an OpenAI blog post. The committee made the recommendation to make the independent board after a recent 90-day review of OpenAI’s “safety and security-related processes and safeguards.”
The committee, which is chaired by Zico Kolter and includes Adam D’Angelo, Paul Nakasone, and Nicole Seligman, will “be briefed by company leadership on safety evaluations for major model releases, and will, along with the full board, exercise oversight over model launches, including having the authority to delay a release until safety concerns are addressed,” OpenAI says. OpenAI’s full board of directors will also receive “periodic briefings” on “safety and security matters.”
The members of OpenAI’s safety committee are also members of the company’s broader board of directors, so it’s unclear exactly how independent the committee actually is or how that independence is structured. We’ve asked OpenAI for comment.
By establishing an independent safety board, it appears OpenAI is taking a somewhat similar approach as Meta’s Oversight Board, which reviews some of Meta’s content policy decisions and can make rulings that Meta has to follow. None of the Oversight Board’s members are on Meta’s board of directors.
The review by OpenAI’s Safety and Security Committee also helped “additional opportunities for industry collaboration and information sharing to advance the security of the AI industry.” The company also says it will look for “more ways to share and explain our safety work” and for “more opportunities for independent testing of our systems.”

Image: The Verge

OpenAI is turning its Safety and Security Committee into an independent “Board oversight committee” that has the authority to delay model launches over safety concerns, according to an OpenAI blog post. The committee made the recommendation to make the independent board after a recent 90-day review of OpenAI’s “safety and security-related processes and safeguards.”

The committee, which is chaired by Zico Kolter and includes Adam D’Angelo, Paul Nakasone, and Nicole Seligman, will “be briefed by company leadership on safety evaluations for major model releases, and will, along with the full board, exercise oversight over model launches, including having the authority to delay a release until safety concerns are addressed,” OpenAI says. OpenAI’s full board of directors will also receive “periodic briefings” on “safety and security matters.”

The members of OpenAI’s safety committee are also members of the company’s broader board of directors, so it’s unclear exactly how independent the committee actually is or how that independence is structured. We’ve asked OpenAI for comment.

By establishing an independent safety board, it appears OpenAI is taking a somewhat similar approach as Meta’s Oversight Board, which reviews some of Meta’s content policy decisions and can make rulings that Meta has to follow. None of the Oversight Board’s members are on Meta’s board of directors.

The review by OpenAI’s Safety and Security Committee also helped “additional opportunities for industry collaboration and information sharing to advance the security of the AI industry.” The company also says it will look for “more ways to share and explain our safety work” and for “more opportunities for independent testing of our systems.”

Read More 

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge; Getty Images

JD Vance almost gave the game away. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday, the Republican vice presidential candidate came close to acknowledging that rumors about Haitian migrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, are completely fabricated — and then backtracked, saying the rumors are true after all.
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance said. When Bash asked him to clarify whether he created the story, Vance made an about-face, claiming he had heard “firsthand accounts” from his constituents. “I say that we’re creating a story meaning that we’re creating the American media focusing on it,” Vance continued. “I didn’t create 20,000 illegal migrants coming in Springfield thanks to Kamala Harris’ policies. Her policies did that, but yes, we created the actual focus.”

JD Vance straight up admits to making up the eating cats and dogs hoax to get the media to talk about immigration.“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” pic.twitter.com/SMqmcEKLmu— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) September 15, 2024

Right-wing influencers and content creators have profited off their posts about Springfield, while politicians like Vance have used the rumors to underscore a broader political point. Vance’s goal is to keep attention on Springfield — and to continue to paint the city and its residents as victims of a supposedly open border. The goal isn’t just to demonize Haitian migrants but to create a narrative of a community under siege, echoing an increasingly popular right-wing conspiracy theory about an elite Democratic plot to “replace” white Americans with migrants of color. Linking to a graph claiming that Haitian migrants were resettling in conservative states, Elon Musk — no stranger to the “great replacement” theory — implied that Democrats were overseeing “massive voter importation to make swing states permanently blue and turn America into a one-party state.”
A day before he went on CNN, Vance claimed that, despite the media’s claims that the rumors about Haitians were baseless, the story “turned out to have merit.” That supposed merit came from a post published by Manhattan Institute fellow and right-wing operative Christopher Rufo, who obtained a video that, he said, depicted African migrants grilling cats in Dayton, Ohio. The video has been disputed, and several people have noted that the animal on the grill appears to have six legs and is more likely to be three chickens than a mutated cat.
“To be clear: this single incident does not confirm every particularity of Trump’s statement,” Rufo wrote. “But it does break the general narrative peddled by the establishment media and its ‘fact checkers,’ who insisted that this has never happened, and that any suggestion otherwise is somehow an expression of racism. It takes only a single exception, however, to falsify a hypothesis, and the logical next step, for any honest broker, is to ask if it is happening more often, and elsewhere.”
Vance, Rufo, and their allies are saying two things at once: the racist rumors about Haitian migrants in Springfield may be untrue, but the fact that Springfield is being overrun with Haitian migrants is irrefutable; and also, the rumors are true because Vance’s constituents said so. This isn’t the first time Vance has tried to have it both ways. Vance previously claimed the rumor was based on calls he’d gotten from constituents before acknowledging the possibility “that all of these rumors will turn out to be false” and pivoting to what he claims is the real story the media is ignoring in Springfield.
Except, as we’ve explained before, the supposedly “real” narrative Vance is pushing about Haitian migrants in Springfield is also untrue. During the CNN interview, Vance said Harris “allowed 20,000 Haitian migrants to get dropped into a small Ohio town,” implying that Springfield’s growing Haitian community was the result of a coordinated campaign by Harris and President Joe Biden. Even the term “migrants” implies that the Haitians who have recently moved to Springfield did so shortly after crossing the border. In fact, according to reports from publications, including The New York Times, they’ve largely relocated to Springfield from other states, including Florida and Georgia — and were drawn there by word of mouth, not because of some federal recruitment scheme. On a recent episode of Vox’s Today, Explained, I discussed how these more insidious rumors fuel the great replacement conspiracy theory.
And as Bash pointed out, this is all putting Springfield residents — Vance’s constituents — at risk. Government buildings have received a spate of bomb threats since the rumor about Haitian migrants in Springfield went viral. Most recently, two elementary schools in Springfield were evacuated Monday after receiving threats, and two local colleges moved to virtual learning Monday for the same reason, CNN reports. Per Reuters, the FBI is looking into the threats. The city canceled its annual CultureFest, slated for September 27th and 28th, to “prevent any potential risks to attendees, staff, vendors, and volunteers.”
It’s worth emphasizing that all of this began with a handful of right-wing influencers’ posts on X — which were not only boosted by the platform’s algorithm and CEO but also amplified by Vance and former President Donald Trump on the debate stage. Instead of being contained to a small vitriolic corner of the internet, the racist memes about Haitians have spilled out of the far-right echo chamber and are putting real people in danger.

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge; Getty Images

JD Vance almost gave the game away. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday, the Republican vice presidential candidate came close to acknowledging that rumors about Haitian migrants eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, are completely fabricated — and then backtracked, saying the rumors are true after all.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance said. When Bash asked him to clarify whether he created the story, Vance made an about-face, claiming he had heard “firsthand accounts” from his constituents. “I say that we’re creating a story meaning that we’re creating the American media focusing on it,” Vance continued. “I didn’t create 20,000 illegal migrants coming in Springfield thanks to Kamala Harris’ policies. Her policies did that, but yes, we created the actual focus.”

Right-wing influencers and content creators have profited off their posts about Springfield, while politicians like Vance have used the rumors to underscore a broader political point. Vance’s goal is to keep attention on Springfield — and to continue to paint the city and its residents as victims of a supposedly open border. The goal isn’t just to demonize Haitian migrants but to create a narrative of a community under siege, echoing an increasingly popular right-wing conspiracy theory about an elite Democratic plot to “replace” white Americans with migrants of color. Linking to a graph claiming that Haitian migrants were resettling in conservative states, Elon Musk — no stranger to the “great replacement” theory — implied that Democrats were overseeing “massive voter importation to make swing states permanently blue and turn America into a one-party state.”

A day before he went on CNN, Vance claimed that, despite the media’s claims that the rumors about Haitians were baseless, the story “turned out to have merit.” That supposed merit came from a post published by Manhattan Institute fellow and right-wing operative Christopher Rufo, who obtained a video that, he said, depicted African migrants grilling cats in Dayton, Ohio. The video has been disputed, and several people have noted that the animal on the grill appears to have six legs and is more likely to be three chickens than a mutated cat.

“To be clear: this single incident does not confirm every particularity of Trump’s statement,” Rufo wrote. “But it does break the general narrative peddled by the establishment media and its ‘fact checkers,’ who insisted that this has never happened, and that any suggestion otherwise is somehow an expression of racism. It takes only a single exception, however, to falsify a hypothesis, and the logical next step, for any honest broker, is to ask if it is happening more often, and elsewhere.”

Vance, Rufo, and their allies are saying two things at once: the racist rumors about Haitian migrants in Springfield may be untrue, but the fact that Springfield is being overrun with Haitian migrants is irrefutable; and also, the rumors are true because Vance’s constituents said so. This isn’t the first time Vance has tried to have it both ways. Vance previously claimed the rumor was based on calls he’d gotten from constituents before acknowledging the possibility “that all of these rumors will turn out to be false” and pivoting to what he claims is the real story the media is ignoring in Springfield.

Except, as we’ve explained before, the supposedly “real” narrative Vance is pushing about Haitian migrants in Springfield is also untrue. During the CNN interview, Vance said Harris “allowed 20,000 Haitian migrants to get dropped into a small Ohio town,” implying that Springfield’s growing Haitian community was the result of a coordinated campaign by Harris and President Joe Biden. Even the term “migrants” implies that the Haitians who have recently moved to Springfield did so shortly after crossing the border. In fact, according to reports from publications, including The New York Times, they’ve largely relocated to Springfield from other states, including Florida and Georgia — and were drawn there by word of mouth, not because of some federal recruitment scheme. On a recent episode of Vox’s Today, Explained, I discussed how these more insidious rumors fuel the great replacement conspiracy theory.

And as Bash pointed out, this is all putting Springfield residents — Vance’s constituents — at risk. Government buildings have received a spate of bomb threats since the rumor about Haitian migrants in Springfield went viral. Most recently, two elementary schools in Springfield were evacuated Monday after receiving threats, and two local colleges moved to virtual learning Monday for the same reason, CNN reports. Per Reuters, the FBI is looking into the threats. The city canceled its annual CultureFest, slated for September 27th and 28th, to “prevent any potential risks to attendees, staff, vendors, and volunteers.”

It’s worth emphasizing that all of this began with a handful of right-wing influencers’ posts on X — which were not only boosted by the platform’s algorithm and CEO but also amplified by Vance and former President Donald Trump on the debate stage. Instead of being contained to a small vitriolic corner of the internet, the racist memes about Haitians have spilled out of the far-right echo chamber and are putting real people in danger.

Read More 

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Intel is spinning off its chipmaking business as part of its plans to reverse billions in losses and a tumbling stock price. In an announcement on Monday, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said the Intel Foundry will become an independent subsidiary with “clearer separation and independence” from Intel.
With the change, the Intel Foundry will have its own operating board and report its financial earnings separately from Intel. Intel will also stop work on the factories it’s building in Poland and Germany for two years “based on anticipated market demand.” The company is still moving forward with its plants in Arizona, Oregon, New Mexico, and Ohio, however.

Additionally, Intel plans on selling part of its stake in Altera, the programmable chip company it acquired in 2015. It will also cut around two-thirds of its global real estate footprint. As part of this announcement, Intel revealed that the Biden administration awarded the company up to $3 billion in funding to make chips for the US military.
These changes will likely be crucial in getting Intel back on track as a leading chipmaker. On top of widespread issues affecting 13th and 14th Gen CPUs, the company reported $1.6 billion in the first quarter of 2024, with its chipmaking business alone racking up $7 billion in operating losses in 2023. In August, Intel announced layoffs affecting 15,000 workers, and now it says it is “more than halfway” to this goal.
“As I’ve said before, this is the most significant transformation of Intel in over four decades. Not since the memory to microprocessor transition have we attempted something so essential,” Gelsinger says. “We succeeded then — and we will meet this moment and build a stronger Intel for decades to come.”
Even though Intel is betting that its new 18A chipmaking process will help stem some of its losses, a recent report from Reuters suggests that early tests have failed when creating Broadcom’s silicon wafers. Starting next year, Intel is planning to produce chips with the 18A process for partners like Microsoft — and now Amazon.

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Intel is spinning off its chipmaking business as part of its plans to reverse billions in losses and a tumbling stock price. In an announcement on Monday, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said the Intel Foundry will become an independent subsidiary with “clearer separation and independence” from Intel.

With the change, the Intel Foundry will have its own operating board and report its financial earnings separately from Intel. Intel will also stop work on the factories it’s building in Poland and Germany for two years “based on anticipated market demand.” The company is still moving forward with its plants in Arizona, Oregon, New Mexico, and Ohio, however.

Additionally, Intel plans on selling part of its stake in Altera, the programmable chip company it acquired in 2015. It will also cut around two-thirds of its global real estate footprint. As part of this announcement, Intel revealed that the Biden administration awarded the company up to $3 billion in funding to make chips for the US military.

These changes will likely be crucial in getting Intel back on track as a leading chipmaker. On top of widespread issues affecting 13th and 14th Gen CPUs, the company reported $1.6 billion in the first quarter of 2024, with its chipmaking business alone racking up $7 billion in operating losses in 2023. In August, Intel announced layoffs affecting 15,000 workers, and now it says it is “more than halfway” to this goal.

“As I’ve said before, this is the most significant transformation of Intel in over four decades. Not since the memory to microprocessor transition have we attempted something so essential,” Gelsinger says. “We succeeded then — and we will meet this moment and build a stronger Intel for decades to come.”

Even though Intel is betting that its new 18A chipmaking process will help stem some of its losses, a recent report from Reuters suggests that early tests have failed when creating Broadcom’s silicon wafers. Starting next year, Intel is planning to produce chips with the 18A process for partners like Microsoft — and now Amazon.

Read More 

With iOS 18 and Halide’s recent update, the third-party camera app can now be opened without unlocking an iPhone. | Image: Sebastiaan de With

Halide users who’ve upgraded their iPhones to iOS 18 are now able to quickly access the advanced camera app directly from their phone’s lockscreen without having to unlock it first. Previously, only the native iOS camera app could be conveniently accessed that way.
Although Halide offers advanced features like manual shutter speed adjustments and a “Process Zero” option that delivers images without any AI processing, accessing Apple’s camera app was always faster thanks to its lockscreen shortcut. Halide could be made accessible through a lockscreen widget, but actually getting into the third-party camera app required an iPhone to be unlocked using Face ID, Touch ID, or by entering a passcode.

Screenshot: Halide
Halide’s latest update allows iOS 18 users to add it as a shortcut to their iPhone’s lockscreen.

With iOS 18 and the new Halide 2.16 update installed, iPhone users can replace either the default camera or flashlight shortcut with one that immediately launches Halide without unlocking. After long-pressing on the iPhone’s lockscreen, you tap the “Customize” button and then tap the lockscreen again. You’ll then be given the option to remove either the default flashlight or camera shortcut and then replace it by pressing the “+” that’s left behind. Other options include default iPhone apps like the calculator or magnifier, but in the Capture section, Halide will now be listed.
However, unlike the default iPhone camera app, Halide isn’t free. It’s available for a monthly subscription of $2.99, a cheaper yearly subscription of $19.99, or as a one-time purchase of $59.99.

With iOS 18 and Halide’s recent update, the third-party camera app can now be opened without unlocking an iPhone. | Image: Sebastiaan de With

Halide users who’ve upgraded their iPhones to iOS 18 are now able to quickly access the advanced camera app directly from their phone’s lockscreen without having to unlock it first. Previously, only the native iOS camera app could be conveniently accessed that way.

Although Halide offers advanced features like manual shutter speed adjustments and a “Process Zero” option that delivers images without any AI processing, accessing Apple’s camera app was always faster thanks to its lockscreen shortcut. Halide could be made accessible through a lockscreen widget, but actually getting into the third-party camera app required an iPhone to be unlocked using Face ID, Touch ID, or by entering a passcode.

Screenshot: Halide
Halide’s latest update allows iOS 18 users to add it as a shortcut to their iPhone’s lockscreen.

With iOS 18 and the new Halide 2.16 update installed, iPhone users can replace either the default camera or flashlight shortcut with one that immediately launches Halide without unlocking. After long-pressing on the iPhone’s lockscreen, you tap the “Customize” button and then tap the lockscreen again. You’ll then be given the option to remove either the default flashlight or camera shortcut and then replace it by pressing the “+” that’s left behind. Other options include default iPhone apps like the calculator or magnifier, but in the Capture section, Halide will now be listed.

However, unlike the default iPhone camera app, Halide isn’t free. It’s available for a monthly subscription of $2.99, a cheaper yearly subscription of $19.99, or as a one-time purchase of $59.99.

Read More 

The new Tile Mate and Tile Slim. | Image: Tile

Tile, one of the leading makers of Bluetooth item finders, has just added a twist — its newest trackers can now send SOS alerts that notify friends, family, and possibly even emergency services.

The 2024 Tile Pro, Tile Mate, Tile Slim, and Tile Sticker are the first new products since Life360 bought the company nearly three years ago, and many facets are unchanged: they should each ring slightly louder and have slightly better water resistance, but the credit card, key fob, and sticker configurations are all roughly the same size and weight. There’s no mention of UWB signals for precision tracking, unlike Apple’s AirTags and Samsung’s SmartTag 2. The Tile Pro is once again the only model that offers a user-replaceable battery.
All but the Tile Sticker now offers an extra 100 feet of quoted Bluetooth range, though, at 350 feet for the Tile and Mate and a full 500 feet for the Pro, and that better connectivity could come in handy if you’re triggering the new emergency alerts.
Tiles could already ring your phone if you double-tap the button; now, a triple tap can optionally send an “SOS Alert” instead. It’ll start a discreet 15-second countdown, after which it’ll send text messages and push notifications to your emergency contacts and even contact Tile’s emergency dispatch center — if you pay for the company’s $14.99 a month Life360 Gold subscription.
The SOS Alerts are a preexisting feature of Life360’s app that you’re basically just remotely triggering over Bluetooth with the Tile’s button instead, so you’ve got to pair your phone with the app and keep it nearby if you want it to work.
It’s also not clear if Life360 will automatically send an ambulance or have a dispatcher call you first, as the company’s website contradicts itself on that point. Tile spokesperson Kelley Garnier says the decision will be made on a case-by-case basis, but either way, a Life360 dispatcher should act immediately.
Life360 reported a data breach earlier this year, where a hacker stole some Tile customer data.

The new Tile Mate and Tile Slim. | Image: Tile

Tile, one of the leading makers of Bluetooth item finders, has just added a twist — its newest trackers can now send SOS alerts that notify friends, family, and possibly even emergency services.

The 2024 Tile Pro, Tile Mate, Tile Slim, and Tile Sticker are the first new products since Life360 bought the company nearly three years ago, and many facets are unchanged: they should each ring slightly louder and have slightly better water resistance, but the credit card, key fob, and sticker configurations are all roughly the same size and weight. There’s no mention of UWB signals for precision tracking, unlike Apple’s AirTags and Samsung’s SmartTag 2. The Tile Pro is once again the only model that offers a user-replaceable battery.

All but the Tile Sticker now offers an extra 100 feet of quoted Bluetooth range, though, at 350 feet for the Tile and Mate and a full 500 feet for the Pro, and that better connectivity could come in handy if you’re triggering the new emergency alerts.

Tiles could already ring your phone if you double-tap the button; now, a triple tap can optionally send an “SOS Alert” instead. It’ll start a discreet 15-second countdown, after which it’ll send text messages and push notifications to your emergency contacts and even contact Tile’s emergency dispatch center — if you pay for the company’s $14.99 a month Life360 Gold subscription.

The SOS Alerts are a preexisting feature of Life360’s app that you’re basically just remotely triggering over Bluetooth with the Tile’s button instead, so you’ve got to pair your phone with the app and keep it nearby if you want it to work.

It’s also not clear if Life360 will automatically send an ambulance or have a dispatcher call you first, as the company’s website contradicts itself on that point. Tile spokesperson Kelley Garnier says the decision will be made on a case-by-case basis, but either way, a Life360 dispatcher should act immediately.

Life360 reported a data breach earlier this year, where a hacker stole some Tile customer data.

Read More 

The Autocado is in your Chipotle, peeling your avocados. | Screenshot: Autocado

Chipotle has a new robot called the Autocado with a key assignment: peeling avocados. The prototype machine “cuts, cores, and peels avocados” by the case before workers mash them up for guacamole in a process Chipotle is describing as using cobots (collaborative robots).
The company says the robot being tested in a store at 20972 Magnolia St. in Huntington Beach, California, will help free employees up for other tasks. The “size agnostic” Autocado machine can get an avocado peeled and seeded within 26 seconds, according to Chipotle.

GIF: Autocado
Autocado in action.

Chipotle says it has invested money from a $100 million venture fund into both of the companies it partnered with for the two new systems — Vebu for the Autocado and Hyphen helped create its new Augmented Makeline.
This Makeline it’s testing in a Corona del Mar, California store (3050 East Coast Hwy), “uses automated technology to build bowls and salads” for customers on a line beneath the usual prep area. The company says that “approximately 65 percent of all Chipotle digital orders are bowls or salads.” (Sincerest condolences to customers whose favorite burrito bowl-making employee has a heavy guacamole hand — it will still be extra.)

The Augmented Makeline prepares a burrito bowl.

The Autocado is in your Chipotle, peeling your avocados. | Screenshot: Autocado

Chipotle has a new robot called the Autocado with a key assignment: peeling avocados. The prototype machine “cuts, cores, and peels avocados” by the case before workers mash them up for guacamole in a process Chipotle is describing as using cobots (collaborative robots).

The company says the robot being tested in a store at 20972 Magnolia St. in Huntington Beach, California, will help free employees up for other tasks. The “size agnostic” Autocado machine can get an avocado peeled and seeded within 26 seconds, according to Chipotle.

GIF: Autocado
Autocado in action.

Chipotle says it has invested money from a $100 million venture fund into both of the companies it partnered with for the two new systems — Vebu for the Autocado and Hyphen helped create its new Augmented Makeline.

This Makeline it’s testing in a Corona del Mar, California store (3050 East Coast Hwy), “uses automated technology to build bowls and salads” for customers on a line beneath the usual prep area. The company says that “approximately 65 percent of all Chipotle digital orders are bowls or salads.” (Sincerest condolences to customers whose favorite burrito bowl-making employee has a heavy guacamole hand — it will still be extra.)

Read More 

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

For years, Google took the same 20 percent commission for ad transactions that ran through its platform, even though it was higher than what any other industry player charged. Executives privately worried the fee was difficult to defend. Now, the Justice Department argues it’s a key sign of Google’s monopoly over online ads.
Google’s so-called take rate took center stage on the last day of week one in the Justice Department’s second antitrust trial against Google. Citing internal Google documents and the testimony of former Google sell-side ads executive Chris LaSala, the DOJ sought to demonstrate that Google never experienced any real pricing pressure due to its unshakable dominance in the market, despite knowing its fee was higher than competitors’ and being aware of customer complaints about its tools. The trial continues this week, with YouTube CEO and former Google ads executive Neal Mohan testifying on Monday.
According to emails presented in court, Google executives wondered whether the 20 percent fee their AdX exchange charged for facilitating transactions was sustainable and worried about how they’d continue to justify it. Jonathan Bellack, another ad executive at Google, wrote in one 2018 exchange that the fee was “not long term defensible.” He also acknowledged in a different 2018 email that the fee should get in line with market value and that it “shouldn’t be double the price.”
But the pricing persisted, largely because Google could control access to a huge advertiser base through the Google Ads Network, only allowing publishers the fullest access to that market through AdX. In one 2018 email, responding to another executive’s question about disclosing Google’s buy-side fee and how much it should be, LaSala noted that the fee for buying and selling ads “holds today not because there is 20% of value in comparing 2 bids to one another, but because it comes with unique demand via AdWords that is not available any other way.” He said he believed “a sell-side rev share should probably top out at 10%” for the open auction and that the “unique demand” from Google Ads was “the only reason we can sustain 20%.”
Jonathan Bellack, another ad executive at Google, wrote in one 2018 exchange that the fee was “not long term defensible.”
In a 2019 email exchange, LaSala recognized “a continued call from buyers and publishers for transparency. It is reasonable and should not be dismissed.” He also said it was “questionable” the 20 percent fee was “reasonable long term” and pointed to a signal that “the market rate” for open auction ad transactions was “closer to 10%.”
Brian O’Kelley, who founded AppNexus, which ran an ad exchange and unsuccessfully tried to build a publisher ad server to compete with Google’s, described in a deposition AdX’s 20 percent take rate as “dramatically higher than competitors’.”
The messages between Google executives highlight their recognition that AdX’s power to link Google’s publisher-side tool and its large advertiser base let the company charge an unusually high commission. While Google has argued that its system ended up benefiting all parties, the government is attempting to prove that it illegally tied together its publisher ad server and its ad exchange — not to provide better service but to maintain a monopoly.
“Publishers keep the vast majority of the revenue when they use Google’s advertising technology, and our fees are transparent and in line with industry rates,” Google spokesperson Jackie Berté said in a statement. “Even when only Google’s tools are used to buy and sell the ad, the publisher keeps about 70% of the revenue.” Google will get its chance to present witnesses and make its own case against the DOJ once the government’s case wraps up.
Even as Google has defended its service, Google employees recognized how hard it would be for publishers to switch ad servers if they were unhappy. LaSala testified that it was a “heavy lift” to switch ad servers and could only think of one publisher in all his time at Google who actually did it: Disney. Rather than switch to another tool, Disney built its own.
As Tom Kershaw, the former chief technology officer at rival ad exchange Rubicon, testified earlier in the day, “I have the option to starve to death. I don’t choose to take that option.” Forgoing access to Google’s advertiser network by bypassing AdX, he said, “is equivalent.”

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

For years, Google took the same 20 percent commission for ad transactions that ran through its platform, even though it was higher than what any other industry player charged. Executives privately worried the fee was difficult to defend. Now, the Justice Department argues it’s a key sign of Google’s monopoly over online ads.

Google’s so-called take rate took center stage on the last day of week one in the Justice Department’s second antitrust trial against Google. Citing internal Google documents and the testimony of former Google sell-side ads executive Chris LaSala, the DOJ sought to demonstrate that Google never experienced any real pricing pressure due to its unshakable dominance in the market, despite knowing its fee was higher than competitors’ and being aware of customer complaints about its tools. The trial continues this week, with YouTube CEO and former Google ads executive Neal Mohan testifying on Monday.

According to emails presented in court, Google executives wondered whether the 20 percent fee their AdX exchange charged for facilitating transactions was sustainable and worried about how they’d continue to justify it. Jonathan Bellack, another ad executive at Google, wrote in one 2018 exchange that the fee was “not long term defensible.” He also acknowledged in a different 2018 email that the fee should get in line with market value and that it “shouldn’t be double the price.”

But the pricing persisted, largely because Google could control access to a huge advertiser base through the Google Ads Network, only allowing publishers the fullest access to that market through AdX. In one 2018 email, responding to another executive’s question about disclosing Google’s buy-side fee and how much it should be, LaSala noted that the fee for buying and selling ads “holds today not because there is 20% of value in comparing 2 bids to one another, but because it comes with unique demand via AdWords that is not available any other way.” He said he believed “a sell-side rev share should probably top out at 10%” for the open auction and that the “unique demand” from Google Ads was “the only reason we can sustain 20%.”

In a 2019 email exchange, LaSala recognized “a continued call from buyers and publishers for transparency. It is reasonable and should not be dismissed.” He also said it was “questionable” the 20 percent fee was “reasonable long term” and pointed to a signal that “the market rate” for open auction ad transactions was “closer to 10%.”

Brian O’Kelley, who founded AppNexus, which ran an ad exchange and unsuccessfully tried to build a publisher ad server to compete with Google’s, described in a deposition AdX’s 20 percent take rate as “dramatically higher than competitors’.”

The messages between Google executives highlight their recognition that AdX’s power to link Google’s publisher-side tool and its large advertiser base let the company charge an unusually high commission. While Google has argued that its system ended up benefiting all parties, the government is attempting to prove that it illegally tied together its publisher ad server and its ad exchange — not to provide better service but to maintain a monopoly.

“Publishers keep the vast majority of the revenue when they use Google’s advertising technology, and our fees are transparent and in line with industry rates,” Google spokesperson Jackie Berté said in a statement. “Even when only Google’s tools are used to buy and sell the ad, the publisher keeps about 70% of the revenue.” Google will get its chance to present witnesses and make its own case against the DOJ once the government’s case wraps up.

Even as Google has defended its service, Google employees recognized how hard it would be for publishers to switch ad servers if they were unhappy. LaSala testified that it was a “heavy lift” to switch ad servers and could only think of one publisher in all his time at Google who actually did it: Disney. Rather than switch to another tool, Disney built its own.

As Tom Kershaw, the former chief technology officer at rival ad exchange Rubicon, testified earlier in the day, “I have the option to starve to death. I don’t choose to take that option.” Forgoing access to Google’s advertiser network by bypassing AdX, he said, “is equivalent.”

Read More 

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Amazon employees will be required to return to the office five days per week starting on January 2nd, 2025.
“We’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID,” CEO Andy Jassy says in a memo sent to staff on Monday. Employees have been required to work from the office three days per week since May 2023, and Jassy says that “if anything, the last 15 months we’ve been back in the office at least three days a week has strengthened our conviction about the benefits.”
Jassy says that staffers won’t have to be in the office to deal with things like a sick kid or emergencies. “But, before the pandemic, it was not a given that folks could work remotely two days a week, and that will also be true moving forward.” Employees who have an approved exception will be able to remain remote.
Jassy also says Amazon is upping the ratio of individual contributors to managers companywide by at least 15 percent by the end of Q1 2025. He didn’t explicitly say that it would require layoffs but said, “We will do this thoughtfully.” He added, “Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today.”

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Amazon employees will be required to return to the office five days per week starting on January 2nd, 2025.

“We’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID,” CEO Andy Jassy says in a memo sent to staff on Monday. Employees have been required to work from the office three days per week since May 2023, and Jassy says that “if anything, the last 15 months we’ve been back in the office at least three days a week has strengthened our conviction about the benefits.”

Jassy says that staffers won’t have to be in the office to deal with things like a sick kid or emergencies. “But, before the pandemic, it was not a given that folks could work remotely two days a week, and that will also be true moving forward.” Employees who have an approved exception will be able to remain remote.

Jassy also says Amazon is upping the ratio of individual contributors to managers companywide by at least 15 percent by the end of Q1 2025. He didn’t explicitly say that it would require layoffs but said, “We will do this thoughtfully.” He added, “Having fewer managers will remove layers and flatten organizations more than they are today.”

Read More