Samsung just gave Google Gemini a new home, and it’s not on your phone. The tech giant announced today it’ll unveil kitchen appliances powered by Google’s AI at CES 2026, marking the first time Gemini will appear in home appliances. The lineup includes upgraded bespoke AI refrigerators, over-the-range microwaves, slide-in ranges, and a new AI Wine Cellar, all launching at the Las Vegas tech showcase from January 6-9.

The shift centers on what Samsung calls “AI Vision,” a camera-based system enhanced by Google Gemini and Google Cloud. Think of it as giving your refrigerator eyes and a brain. The tech currently recognizes 37 food items like fresh fruits and vegetables, but with Gemini’s help, Samsung is promising more accurate identification and broader functionality. Users can check what’s in their fridge, get recipe suggestions, and manage ingredients without manually tracking everything.

Samsung’s also betting big on wine enthusiasts. The new Bespoke AI Wine Cellar uses a top-mounted camera to recognize wine labels and track bottles automatically through the SmartThings AI Wine Manager. The system can even identify which shelf and compartment each bottle occupies, so you’re not hunting through your collection.

Which other Samsung home appliances are getting AI upgrades?

Beyond the kitchen, Samsung is rolling out a full smart home lineup. The Bespoke AI Laundry Combo gets upgraded AI Wash & Dry+ that uses multiple sensors to detect fabric types, including Outdoor and Denim, and adjust water, detergent, and drying cycles automatically.

The Bespoke AI AirDresser introduces Auto Wrinkle Care with dual steam systems for quick garment refreshing. The flagship Bespoke AI Jet Bot Steam Ultra robot vacuum, powered by a Qualcomm Dragonwing processor, now recognizes humans, pets, cables, and rugs through deep learning-based object detection.

Image credit: Samsung

Samsung’s TV lineup is also expanding. The company announced a Micro RGB display range spanning 55 to 115 inches, featuring 4K AI Upscaling Pro and Micro RGB HDR Pro for enhanced color precision across premium home viewing.

“Samsung will reach a new level of innovation through this collaboration with Google Cloud,” said Jeong Seung Moon, Executive Vice President and Head of R&D at Samsung’s Digital Appliances division.

How is LG approaching AI-powered home appliances differently?

LG is taking a different route but with the same goal. The company is marking the 10th anniversary of its SIGNATURE brand with an expanded 10-product lineup powered by AI Core-Tech. At the center is the new LG SIGNATURE refrigerator featuring conversational AI based on Large Language Model technology.

The 6.8-inch LCD display supports natural-language interactions for tailored suggestions. The AI Fresh feature even monitors temperature fluctuations based on user patterns and pre-cools the interior up to two hours before anticipated door openings.

The LG SIGNATURE Smart InstaView refrigerator goes a step further with ThinQ Food, using internal cameras to identify ingredients, suggest recipes, and offer creative substitutions. When not in use, the T-OLED InstaView panel displays elegant visuals, transforming the kitchen into an expressive space.

Image Credit: LG

For cooking, LG’s SIGNATURE Oven Range introduces Gourmet AI, which uses an AI camera to identify more than 85 dishes and automatically applies the optimal cooking settings, including temperature, time, and mode, so you don’t have to program it manually. The AI Browning feature monitors bread as it bakes and sends a notification through the ThinQ app when it reaches the preset level of doneness. The connected smartphone features include real-time monitoring, time-lapse recaps, and easy social media sharing.

What does this mean for the future of smart homes?

Both companies are pushing AI beyond novelty into genuine utility. Samsung’s collaboration with Google and LG’s integration of conversational AI represent a broader industry shift—AI as a daily assistant rather than a standalone feature. The technology is meant to simplify meal planning, reduce food waste, and make homes smarter without requiring constant user input.

Whether consumers want AI tracking their groceries, cooking habits, and daily routines is another question. The privacy concerns in both announcements remain unaddressed for now. But if CES 2026 is any indication, the smart home market is betting they will. Visitors at both companies’ booths in Las Vegas will be the first to see these systems in action, and that’s where the real test begins.

Samsung Galaxy S26 leaks point to a risky year of stagnation for the smartphone giant

Early Galaxy S26 leaks suggest Samsung is leaning heavily on recycled designs, raising questions about whether brand loyalty alone can carry its flagship lineup into 2026.

Updated

December 22, 2025

Link copied!
Copy failed!

SOURCE PAGE

I love playing video games, but what interests me most as a journalist are the ways in which games intersect with real life. One of the joys of spending 20 years on this beat has been meeting hundreds of people whose lives have been meaningfully enhanced by games, and as their cultural influence has grown, these stories have become more and more plentiful.

There is another side to this, however. A couple of decades ago, video games were mostly either ignored or vilified by governments and mainstream culture, leading to an underdog mentality that has persisted even as games have become a nearly $200bn industry. As their popularity has grown, so have their political and cultural relevance. And the ways in which games intersect with real life are now coloured by the economic and political realities of our times.

When I look back on this year’s happenings in the world of games, I see a lot of positives. A theme of the past few years has been comparatively small-scale games outperforming expensive blockbusters: the best examples this year have been the now multi-award-winning Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, and Hollow Knight: Silksong, which has sold seven million copies. Despite year-long discussions over the finer points of what counts as “indie” and how many people really contribute to games made by “tiny” teams – a lot of them use contractors, who deserve to be acknowledged – the point remains that it is very possible to make brilliant and creative games to extremely high standards without a $100m budget, and that is something to be celebrated.

Smaller-scale wins … Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. Photograph: Kepler Interactive

The Nintendo Switch 2 was also (finally) announced and released this year, and has been very well received despite Trump’s best efforts to scupper its launch with tariff drama. Having a new console to enjoy tends to revive one’s enthusiasm for games, and though the Switch 2 didn’t feel enormously different from the original Switch, when I go back to my old machine now I really feel the difference.

But the broader story of 2025 is of a games industry reckoning with the same late-capitalist, techno-feudalistic forces that are threatening every creative industry. Wealth continues to concentrate at the top, while workers continue to face huge instability: more than 5,000 games industry jobs have been lost this year, and have several studios, including Monolith Productions. AI disruption is everywhere, meanwhile, as companies try to force their workforces to justify immense investments in the as-yet-unprofitable technology. AI-generated artwork and voiceovers have made their way into some of this year’s more successful games, and the pushback has been vociferous.

All this has led to much greater visibility for video game workers’ unions. In March, United Videogame Workers formed in the US and Canada, part of the Communications Workers of America. (They could be found protesting outside the Game Awards earlier this month.) In the UK, the firing of 30 staff from Rockstar Games pushed the UK’s IWGB Game Workers Union into the spotlight. Unionisation is slowly becoming more common even in the US, where there is not a strong culture of workplace organisation.

Protesters at the Rockstar Games office in Edinburgh in November. Photograph: Lesley Martin/PA

Another theme of the past few years has been consolidation: when Microsoft acquired Activision in 2023, it made me feel very uneasy about the concentration of economic power. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) has been buying its way into the games industry for years via esports partnerships and companies such as Savvy Games Group and Scopely, but this year it was kicked into high gear by a $55bn deal for EA. The Saudis also bought Niantic, makers of Pokémon Go, in March. (If you are wondering why the PIF is quite so ethically troubling, and how these video game investments form part of a strategy to whitewash the country’s image and that of its royal family, Eurogamer’s interview with Human Rights Watch from earlier this year is an essential read.)

What we see here is money and power concentrating in the video game world in the same way as in the wider world. And games have immense power to influence people’s thoughts and attitudes: the most powerful people in the world have started to realise this. (Even Elon Musk sees the value of appropriating game credibility: he was discovered to be a fake gamer in January after boasting about his Path of Exile 2 character online.) Why else would the Trump administration be tweeting AI-generated images of the president as Halo’s Master Chief? Or using Pokémon and Halo memes to recruit for ICE? Why else would rightwing agitators continue to feed culture war spats over a black samurai in Assassin’s Creed, or a non-binary actor in a PlayStation game?

Elon Musk boasted about being an elite gamer online – and turned out to be faking it Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

I don’t pretend to be neutral on any of these things. Earlier this year, after I wrote about the Saudi acquisition of EA, I got an email from a reader asking if “some of this stuff is more editorial opinion rather than fact/news”. The answer to that is: it’s both. I will never report anything here that isn’t true, but I also won’t shy away from delivering my informed opinion on the things that go on in the gaming world. Unsurprisingly for a Guardian journalist, my values are inclusive, left-leaning and somewhat sceptical of corporate power, and of course that informs what I write in Pushing Buttons. I think that those values are vital context in these times.

Playing games is something a lot of us do for escapism, and a lot of people still react defensively if you talk about their relevance to real-world politics. Don’t we play games to get away from this stuff? Can’t we just concentrate on the hundreds of fantastic games that come out every single year, from creatively fired-up developers and artists all over the world? But games are inextricable from what’s happening in the real world. All art is. As if to symbolise this, this year’s Summer Game Fest – a showcase of forthcoming games held in LA in June – was interrupted by city-wide LA protests against ICE.

It matters, who has power. Games feel so exciting because they often give so much power to their players, to carve their own paths though their worlds. As players we leave an impression on games, and they leave an impression on us. In an ideal world, players and developers would be the people who held the power in the video games industry, too. If we enjoy video games, it is worth keeping an eye on the biggest players.

SOURCE PAGE

When the dust settles on a year that included a ceasefire in the brutal war in Gaza, persistent but ultimately fruitless efforts to end the war in Ukraine, and the ramp up to a potential war in Venezuela, the biggest US national security story of 2025 may turn out to be one in which not a single shot was fired: This was the year that the US tried to declare economic war on China, and China fought back.

Early this year, in its final weeks in office, the Biden administration released its most sweeping rules yet governing the international trade of the semiconductor chips used to develop artificial intelligence models. Though these rules governed chip access for every country on earth, their primary aim was keeping the highest-end chips out of China.

This was in keeping with the concern of many US officials in both parties that the US risks falling behind China in the race to develop advanced AI, and that this race would be key to the balance of power in the 21st century.

The importance of US-China competition was an area of agreement between the first Trump and Biden administrations and there was every reason to believe the aggressive posture would carry over when President Donald Trump retook the Oval Office. Indeed, in its first month in office, the Trump administration slapped a 10 percent tariff on China for its alleged failure to combat the trade in fentanyl — those tariffs were later doubled. By April, the tariff rate was up to 145 percent, with Trump citing a “national emergency” caused by unfair Chinese trading practices. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described these tariffs as effectively an “embargo.”

At the end of the 2025, things are in a very different place. The US dropped its steepest tariffs after just a few weeks, despite no major concessions from the Chinese side, and were dropped down to 20 percent after Trump held what he called a “12 out of 10” meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in late October. In December, Trump scrapped much of the effort to restrict China’s access to chips by approving sales of Nvidia’s advanced H200 chips in the country, despite the objections of GOP hawks on Capitol Hill. “President Xi responded very positively!” announced the president once thought of by many as a dangerously aggressive China hawk.

The events of this year could end up being viewed as the moment of a fundamental shift in the power balance between the two countries, and one that could have ramifications in conflicts to come.

“It’s been a landmark year in the US-China relationship,” said Eddie Fishman, a former State Department sanctions official who now teaches at Columbia University. Fishman suggested that the events of recent months have “fundamentally changed the balance of power. It’s made the US much more gunshy about taking aggressive steps against China.”

US officials’ optimism about their ability to play hardball with Beijing wasn’t entirely unfounded. The US has long been adept at weaponizing what Fishman calls “chokepoints” in the global economy to put pressure on adversaries. The use of the dollar in international financial transactions is one example; the fact that the most advanced semiconductor chips are designed almost exclusively by US companies and produced almost exclusively by US allies is another.

Trump’s 145 percent tariff was a blunter instrument. But in that case, US consumers were the weapon. The idea promoted by the administration was that China’s economic model, which heavily depends on exports, could not survive without selling goods to the US.

In the long run, that may be true, but in the short run, the US blinked first. The 145 percent tariffs had caused the stock market to fall and raised fears of a recession. Bessent described the policy as not sustainable.

China’s manufacturing sector had indeed taken a hit, but it was still able to negotiate tariffs down to previous levels without major concessions on any of the policies that Trump had described as “ripping off” the United States. (This is in contrast to the European Union, which agreed to a trade deal that was very favorable to the US, under pressure from Trump’s tariffs.)

China’s authoritarian political system may simply have the ability to sustain the economic impact of a trade war longer than a poll-watching US administration. Xi certainly framed it this way, saying, “For over 70 years, China’s development has relied on self-reliance and hard work…and it is not afraid of any unjust suppression.”

But China wasn’t just taking the US’s punches — it was punching back. It did this by imposing 125 percent tariffs of its own, and halted purchases of American soybeans, but more importantly, it began weaponizing a chokepoint of its own. In April, China announced it was suspending the export of a range of rare earth metals and magnets — essential materials for US automobile, electronics, and defense manufacturers — around 90 percent of which are produced in China.

This set off panic among industry leaders when it became clear they only had weeks of stock of some of these materials left, and according to the Washington Post, “provoked deep consternation at high levels of the administration,” leading to Trump’s softened tone against Beijing.

The rare earth restrictions were a “holy shit” moment, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told reporters during a recent reporters’ roundtable hosted by George Washington University.

Warner believes the administration’s realization of the “enormous reliance we have on China in terms of critical minerals” contributed directly to the decision to lift restrictions on chip exports. He also believes it’s a problem we should have seen coming.

“That is not a Trump administration-only mistake,” Warner said, later adding, “This has been a 15-year problem.”

There’s a striking contrast between this response in Washington and the export controls on chips, which did not prompt any major policy changes in Beijing and have likely slowed China’s AI progress but haven’t prevented it from introducing new models this year.

China has used economic coercion against other countries before, often more informally than this. Norway’s salmon exports to China dropped precipitously after imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013, for instance. China has also played the rare earths card before: it briefly suspended exports to Japan in 2010 during a flare-up of a long-running conflict over disputed islands in the East China Sea.

But its actions this year were different both in scale and how systematic they were. Notably, China appears to have been taking notes on how its rivals used economic chokepoints in recent years.

“China absolutely uses foreign policies as a template for its own,” said Cory Combs, head of supply chain research at the research firm Trivium China. “Its export controls very closely map US, and to some extent, EU export controls.”

A notable example is its “unreliable entities” list of foreign companies and organizations restricted from doing business with China because they had “made malicious remarks about China, and assisted foreign governments in suppressing Chinese companies,” which is modeled fairly explicitly on the US Commerce Department’s “entity list.” A new licensing regime announced in October restricting the export of equipment to foreign producers that make their own rare earths products appears modeled on the policies the US has used to prevent companies that use US equipment from selling microchips to China.

Analysts believe China began a much more concerted effort to build the tools and legal frameworks to counter what it sees as US economic coercion during the first Trump administration, when the US began targeting Chinese tech firms like Huawei and ZTE with export controls.

This was the year Beijing got the opportunity to put its new weapons to the test.

China agreed to pause its rare earths restrictions for a year after the Trump-Xi meeting in October (and resumed buying soybeans) but hasn’t scrapped them entirely, and they could always be tightened again.

“The cat is out of the bag,” says Fishman. “This is going to be part of China’s strategy from here forward.”

This has implications beyond US-China trade policy. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where China, peeved by US weapons sales to Taiwan, a future US president meeting with the Dalai Lama, or future chip restrictions, again turns to its rare earths weapon.

Amid the recent China-friendly shift in his rhetoric, Trump has taken to referring to the two countries as the “G2,” a formulation that effectively puts China on an equal geopolitical footing to the US and also deeply irritates US allies like India.

Other countries beyond the “G2” are likely to have taken note of the dynamics this year.

“Do we really expect other countries to really stand up against China now?” said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center. “It sends a message to the rest of the world that everyone needs to be more careful about how to deal with China.”

The Trump administration is looking for ways to blunt China’s economic weapons. One obvious way to do this would be to reduce reliance on Chinese rare earths. Despite their name, these metals aren’t actually all that rare, but they’re difficult to mine, environmentally polluting, and come with low profit margins. Private investment in mining them is unlikely without the kind of generous incentives the Chinese government provides. The US is now responding after this year’s wakeup call: The Pentagon has taken an ownership share in the only company currently mining rare earths in the US, and the Trump administration has inked rare earths deals with Australia and Saudi Arabia.

But some experts believe it may take more than a decade before China-free supply chains can be developed. Despite Japan’s large-scale effort to diversify away from Chinese rare earth supplies after the 2010 crisis, it still buys about 60 percent of them from China. On the other side, China is working to reduce its reliance on the US and its allies for chips as well, but those efforts are also likely to take years.

The generous reading of both trends, from a US perspective, is that the two countries are caught in a kind of economic mutual assured destruction that could keep tensions from spiraling out of control. The less generous reading is that this year showed that when it comes to economic warfare, China has a higher tolerance for escalation than the US. And it may escalate again soon.

SOURCE PAGE

If it feels like your iPhone is glitchier than ever before, you’re not alone.

Angry Apple fans have flooded social media to complain that their expensive smartphones are plagued with tech issues.

As frustrations grow with the tech giant, some fans have even sworn that they have been driven to ditch Apple products altogether.

One infuriated commenter even took to X to vent: ‘I will never be an Apple customer again after dealing with this POS [piece of s***]!!!!’

Over the last year, iPhones have battled a surge of glitches, from failed alarms to the appearance of a ‘black dot of death’.

Likewise, many die–hard Apple fans are beginning to feel disappointed by the lack of innovation or new features in each year’s iteration of the flagship phone.

While industry analysts don’t think the iPhone will go the way of Blackberry any time soon, this could be the beginning of a bigger decline.

Mark Patrick, Director of Technical Content at Mouser Electronics, told Daily Mail: ‘Growing frustration among tech enthusiasts over bugs and glitches could dent its status as the ‘go–to’ device.’

As concerns over glitches and poor battery life mount, Apple fans are pledging to ditch the iPhone. But is this really the end for the flagship smartphone?

This year, iPhone users have reported a growing number of issues. Now, many have taken to social media to vent their frustrations 

Many former Apple fans are so frustrated that they now believe Android phones offer a better experience 

Since the release of iOS 18 and iOS 24, iPhone users have been increasingly frustrated by the number of glitches their phones experience.

Even Celebrity Traitors star Cat Burns took to social media to complain about her iPhone’s software.

The glitch, which appears to affect iPhones installed with iOS 26, turns alarms into a ‘whisper’, making users late for work and even miss their flights.

The British singer–songwriter shared her frustrations in a now–viral TikTok video where she urged Apple to ‘sort it OUT’. 

Earlier this year, another mysterious glitch baffled iPhone users as a strange black dot appeared on their screens.

While the reason for the error is unknown, owners reported needing to pay for screen replacements to resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, another particularly embarrassing glitch affecting phones on iOS 18 began dredging up users’ browsing history, including searches they would rather keep private. 

Apple users discovered that their devices displayed old adult content at unwanted moments, despite their best efforts to clear their browser history, tabs and cookies, even after making sure to view risqué content in ‘incognito mode’ only.

On TikTok, Celebrity Traitors star Cat Burns complained about an iPhone glitch which caused her alarms to ‘whisper’

Recent iPhone glitches reported by users

• Alarms triggering as a ‘whisper’
• The ‘black circle of death’
• Old browsing history resurfacing 
• Unlocking requires multiple attempts
• Music apps such as Spotify freezing 
• Random apps downloading 
• Photos appear with blacked–out portions
• Wi–Fi cutting out and then reconnecting after being unlocked 
• App icons appearing blank
• Unable to connect to mobile data 

One mortified iPhone owner even added that the glitch had accidentally revealed their private browsing habits to their mother. 

Now, Apple fans’ irritation appears to have reached boiling point, as customers take their concerns to social media.

One commenter on X wrote: ‘I can’t be more disappointed in this iPhone. I’ve had multiple glitches, and it locked up so I had to reboot it. For $1100, Apple needs to do better.’

Another added: ‘Nothing but glitches since updating. So frustrating – even unlocking the phone takes three or four attempts.’

While one furious iPhone user chimed in: ‘This current iteration of iOS is dreadful. The clunkiest, sloppiest, back dated looking pile of hot garbage, perhaps in the history of your software.’

Amidst these concerns, some users have even vowed to switch out their iPhones for Android devices.

One commenter wrote on X: ‘After my iPhone ***** out I’m getting an android. I’m tired of all the lagging and glitches and ppls voice cutting out because they’re using their iphone to call me.’

Another added: ‘I have had glitches and bugs so regularly now my Android has become my more reliable phone.’

On TikTok, many more Apple fans have complained about their iPhone’s software. One (left) said that iOS 26 caused apps to crash and their screen to go black, while another (right) said that their iPhone glitches ‘a million times a day’

Many of the issues have been reported since the release of iOS 26. This update added the new Liquid Glass display to replace Apple’s standard blocky, flat icons 

While one former Apple fan complained: ‘Dog, I don’t know what’s up with my phone lately, late text and a bunch of bs glitches. Honestly I think Android better than iPhone bro.’ 

Analysts suggest that users have been so put off by these issues because Apple previously had such an excellent reputation for reliability.

Rebecca Crook, UK CEO of IT consulting firm MSQ DX, told Daily Mail: ‘There is a current mismatch between user expectations and the product.

‘Apple has historically excelled at customer satisfaction, but the technical issues we’re seeing, from iOS 18 glitches to battery problems to touchscreen responsiveness, represent a breakdown in that core promise. 

‘The real risk isn’t extinction; it’s erosion of trust. When people are paying on average over £1,000 for a device, they expect it to work flawlessly.’

Likewise, many fans have expressed frustration that each successive generation of iPhones is more or less the same as the last.

For example, one commenter complained on X: ‘iPhone 17 is barely better than my 11 Pro Max – glitches, flickers, & poor performance. Instead of real innovation, Apple wastes time on childish gimmicks like Genmoji and Image Playground.’

Jan Stryjak, head of European research at Counterpoint Research, told Daily Mail: ‘The frustration may stem from the apparent leaps that other manufacturers, for example HONOR, vivo, OPPO and even Huawei, are making with their latest devices, particularly from a camera and battery perspective. 

On X, one former Apple fan said that they would never use products from the company again after dealing with the glitches on the iPhone 16

Analysts say that Apple fans are frustrated by the low pace of innovation in newer iPhones and the lack of improvements to battery and charging 

How to update your iPhone to iOS 26.2

To download the update on your iPhone, simply head to your iPhone Settings and scroll down to General.

Tap Software Update and you’ll see the option to install iOS 26.2 now.

The download should only take a few minutes to install.

Alternatively, select ‘Update Tonight’ to install the update when your phone is placed on charge overnight.

You can also select ‘Automatic Updates’ and set the toggles to on to ensure you always get the latest software as soon as possible.

‘The battery and charging technology are areas in which Apple and Samsung are falling significantly behind.’

However, the big question is whether these complaints will translate into a decline in sales or changes in strategy from Apple.

Ms Crook predicts that Apple may have to change their approach to meet customers’ expectations.

She says: ‘I predict that Apple may move away from rigid annual releases toward a more flexible product cadence – similar to what they’ve done with iPad.

‘We may see Apple transition to releasing new iPhones when they have something meaningful to say, rather than releasing them because the calendar says it’s September.’

Ms Crooks used the iPhone Air as an example of the innovation that Apple is capable of when given more than a year to develop a product.

However, Mr Stryjak is less convinced that Apple needs to change its current approach.

He says: ‘The iPhone is still the preferred device for most youth segments around the world, and Apple has arguably the most loyal fanbase of any smartphone manufacturer all tied into a very tight–knit ecosystem. 

Despite user frustrations, industry data suggests that the iPhone is selling better than ever. This means Apple is unlikely to change its strategy anytime soon. Pictured: Apple CEO Tim Cook 

‘Exiting that ecosystem is not straightforward, so we don’t expect a major exodus any time soon.’

In fact, Counterpoint Research’s data suggests that Apple is actually on course for its best year of sales in a very long time. 

The iPhone 16 was the best–selling smartphone globally between July and September, accounting for four per cent of all smartphone sales.

By next year, Counterpoint Research expects Apple to dethrone Samsung as the world’s biggest smartphone maker for the first time in over a decade. 

Driven by continued sales of the iPhone 17 as customers rush to upgrade their old devices, Apple is expected to have delivered almost 20 per cent of all smartphone sales this year and could continue to grow. 

So, despite massive disappointment over the flop of Apple Intelligence and increased user frustration, Apple is unlikely to turn its back on the iPhone any time soon. 

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.  

THE TRILLION DOLLAR RISE OF APPLE

1976: Founders Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne created the company on April 1 1976 as they set about selling computer kits to hobbyists, each of which was built by Wozniak.

The first product was the Apple I. 

1977: Apple released the Apple II in June, which was the first PC made for the mass market. 

Steve Jobs unveils Apple Computer Corporation’s new Macintosh February 6, 1984 in California.

1981: Jobs became chairman.  

1984: The Macintosh was introduced during an ad break for the Super Bowl and later officially unveiled during a launch event. It was discontinued a year later and Jobs left the firm.

1987: Apple released the Macintosh II, the first colour Mac.

1997: Apple announces it will acquire NeXT software in a $400 million deal that involves Jobs returning to Apple as interim CEO. He officially took the role in 2000.  

The then Chief Executive Officer of Apple, Steve Jobs, with the iPhone

2001: Apple introduced iTunes, OS X and the first-generation iPod.

The first iPod MP3 music player was released on October 23, 2001, at an event in Cupertino and was able to hold up to 1,000 songs.

2007: Apple unveils the iPhone. 

2010: The first iPad was unveiled.

2011: Jobs resigned in 2011 due to illness, handing the CEO title to Tim Cook. Jobs died in October from pancreatic cancer.

2014: Apple unveiled the Apple Watch. It also unveiled its first larger iPhones – the 6 and 6 Plus. 

2015: After purchasing Beats from Dr Dre, Apple launched Apple Music to compete with Spotify and other music streaming services. 

2016: Apple returned to its roots and announced the 4-inch iPhone SE. Meanwhile, the firm is embroiled in a legal battle with the FBI, involving the agency demanding access to the locked phone used by Syed Farook, who died in a shootout after carrying out a deadly December attack in San Bernardino, California with his wife. The court order was dropped on March 28 after the FBI said a third party was able to unlock the device.  

2017: Apple introduces the iPhone X, which removes the home button to make way for a futuristic edge-to-edge screen design and a new FaceID system that uses advanced sensors and lasers to unlock phones with just the owner’s face.    

Apple CEO Steve Jobs speaks at an Apple event at Apple headquarters in Cupertino, Calif.

2018: In a first for the company, Apple introduces new features in its latest operating system, iOS 12, that encourage users to manage and spend less time on their devices. The move was spawned by a strongly worded letter from shareholders that urged the firm to address the growing problem of smartphone addiction among kids and teenagers. 

2019: In January, Apple reports its first decline in revenues and profits in a decade. CEO Tim Cook partly blamed steep declines in revenue from China.

2020: In March, Apple closes all its bricks and mortar retail stores outside of China in response to coronavirus. 

2021: In an online virtual event in April CEO Tim Cook declared Apple’s goal of becoming carbon neutral for Earth Day. Later in the year the iPhone 13 was announced. 

2022: In September the iPhone 14 was announced. One of the new features included a new sensor to detect if a user had been in a car crash as well as an improved camera system. 

2023: Apple brought back its ‘Home Pod’ after the first generation was discontinued. The ‘Home Pod’ can be seen as an alternative to Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home as it is powered by voice commands. 

2024: Apple makes its first steps into artificial intelligence with the release of Apple Intelligence. The features are not all released at once with many delayed until the following year. 

SOURCE PAGE

First published 21 Dec, 2025

Thanks for reading The Next Wave this year.

Your engagement hasn’t just been a metric because it has shaped these conversations every Sunday. I want to specifically thank my co-writers Adonijah Ndege, Frank Eleanya and Muktar Oladunmade. They are the intellectual muscle behind these stories and the ones who help me find the signal in the noise.

As we look toward 2026, the tech ecosystem on the continent is finally shedding its skin. We are moving past the era of easy capital and vanity metrics into a period of hard institutionalisation. 2026 will be the year when regulators stop observing and start actively rewiring the digital economy.

And while most analysts predict a simple funding recovery, here is what we think people are missing.

First, the standalone fintech app is becoming a relic, so success in 2026 will belong to the invisible companies building the plumbing for non-tech sectors like agriculture and logistics.

We also expect the hype around AI to hit a wall. Without massive local investment in power and data centres, Africa risks becoming a mere consumer of foreign tools rather than a creator.

Finally, the big exit might be a myth because we expect to see more local consolidation where African giants acquire each other to survive because the global buyers are looking elsewhere.

Next Wave continues after this ad.

Sign up with the code OSIMHEN, and Roqqu will cover 50% of your transaction fees when you buy, sell, or swap on the app for the next 1 month!

Sign up here!

The year in review: Your top five

This final edition looks back at our top five pieces that resonated most with you.

1. The telecom that built a bank by accident

This piece traced Safaricom’s evolution from a telecom operator to the backbone of Kenya’s financial system. M-PESA is so large now that the company handles anti-money laundering and fraud detection like a traditional bank even though that was never the original plan.

2. A founder’s personal assets as collateral for failure

We looked at the startup ecosystem in China and how redemption rights can leave founders personally liable for failed ventures. When homes and savings can be seized, the stakes of entrepreneurship change completely. This serves as a sobering warning for the African venture landscape.

Next Wave continues after this ad.

Africa’s Business Heroes celebrates the bold innovators shaping the continent’s future. Join us in Kigali on 12-13 December for the 7th ABH Summit & Grand Final where Africa’s Top10 entrepreneurs take the stage with game changing solutions. Don’t miss the insights, connections, and inspiration.

Register now!

3. Digitising Danfo payments could unlock a 375 million dollar opportunity

This essay focused on Nigeria’s informal transport sector. Moving fare payments from cash to digital platforms could bring transparency to millions of journeys and create a massive new market for payment providers.

4. Kenyan government services turning into pay-to-access schemes

We examined concerns around Kenya’s eCitizen platform. The core argument was that charging premium fees for faster public services risks creating a tiered system where essential rights are locked behind a paywall.

5. Realising regional expansion for African startups

This edition explained why moving across borders is the hardest task for any founder. Using Twiga Foods as an example, we explored why scaling requires a deep and often painful understanding of local regulations and customer habits.

Next Wave continues after this ad.

The Future of Commerce Report: Beyond the First wave is TechCabal Insights’ annual report, launched at Moonshot by TechCabal in October 2025.

Africa’s next wave of innovation isn’t in payments or marketplaces—it’s in the “X Areas”: the overlooked, unglamorous back-office challenges holding millions of businesses back.

This report reveals where investment and innovation are heading next and what it means for founders, investors, and policymakers shaping Africa’s trade backbone.

Downloand the report here!

Thank you for reading, replying and sharing this year. We will be back on 10 January 2026.

Happy holidays!

Kenn Abuya

Senior Reporter, TechCabal

Thank you for reading this far. Feel free to email kenn[at]bigcabal.com, with your thoughts about this edition of NextWave. Or just click reply to share your thoughts and feedback.

We’d love to hear from you

Psst! Down here!

Thanks for reading today’s Next Wave. Please share. Or subscribe if someone shared it to you here for free to get fresh perspectives on the progress of digital innovation in Africa every Sunday.

As always feel free to email a reply or response to this essay. I enjoy reading those emails a lot.

TC Daily newsletter is out daily (Mon – Fri) brief of all the technology and business stories you need to know. Get it in your inbox each weekday at 7 AM (WAT).

Follow TechCabal on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay engaged in our real-time conversations on tech and innovation in Africa.

If you liked this edition of Next Wave, please share with your friends. And feel free to reply with thoughts and feedback. We welcome those.

SOURCE PAGE

Photo by Viktor Mindt / Unsplash

Remember when engagement rings meant eating ramen for six months? Yeah, me too.

But last week, something crazy happened. My buddy Jake walks into this jewelry store ready to blow his entire savings. He points at this gorgeous 2-carat ring. The salesperson goes, “That’ll be $3,500.”

Jake thought she missed a zero. Nope. Lab-grown diamond.

His fiancée, Sarah? She’s showing that ring off to EVERYONE. And guess what – nobody can tell it’s not a “regular” diamond. Because… well… it IS a regular diamond. Just made in a lab instead of dug up from the ground.

Wild, right?

I spent three weeks digging into this whole lab-grown diamond jewelry thing. Talked to scientists who actually make these things. Visited labs. Compared prices until my eyes hurt. Even brought my jeweler uncle into it (he was NOT happy about the price differences).

Brands like Icecartel figured this out already. They’re selling lab diamonds and moissanite pieces that look identical to the stuff rappers wear. Except that normal humans can afford them.

Here’s everything I learned…

Lab Diamonds Are Real Diamonds (Yes, Really)

People keep asking me if lab diamonds are “fake.”

Uh, no. They’re diamonds. Period.

The Government Actually Changed the Rules

Get this – in 2019, the Federal Trade Commission literally rewrote what counts as a diamond. They deleted “natural” from the definition completely. Why? Because there’s zero difference between lab and mined diamonds. The same carbon atoms are arranged the same way.

It’s like asking if ice from your freezer is “fake” compared to ice from a glacier. It’s all frozen water, dude.

How Do They Even Make These Things?

Alright, so imagine you’re baking cookies, but instead of flour and sugar, you’re using carbon. And instead of an oven, you’re using temperatures hot enough to melt steel.

Scientists start with a baby diamond (literally smaller than a grain of salt). They put it in this sci-fi-looking machine. Crank up the heat to about 2,000°F. Add pressure that would flatten a car into a pancake. Wait eight weeks.

BOOM. Diamond.

I watched them do this in person. Still can’t believe it works.

Nobody Can Tell the Difference (Seriously)

My uncle’s been a jeweler for 32 years. Gave him two diamonds – one lab, one mined. He studied them for twenty minutes with his fancy equipment.

Picked wrong.

The ONLY way to tell? Labs have to spend $50,000 on special machines that detect nitrogen. Mined diamonds have tiny amounts. Lab ones don’t. That’s literally the only difference. And you need a machine that costs more than a Tesla to spot it.

Environmental Reality Check

Not trying to get all Captain Planet on you, but these numbers are nuts.

Mining Damage You Can See From Space

Ever seen the Diavik mine in Canada? It’s visible from the International Space Station. Not joking.

For every engagement ring, miners move 250 TONS of dirt. That’s about 100 pickup trucks worth. For one tiny rock.

Water usage? 126 gallons per carat for mining. Lab diamonds use 18 gallons.

Oh, and those holes they leave behind? They’re basically permanent. The Kimberley mine in South Africa is so deep, they had to stop digging because it was messing with the air pressure. Now it’s just… there. Forever.

Labs Aren’t Perfect Either, Though

Let’s be real – labs suck up electricity like crazy. Making one carat uses about as much power as your house uses in a month.

BUT (big but) – lots of labs run on renewable energy now. There’s one in Oregon powered entirely by wind. Another in Nevada uses solar. Way better than diesel-powered mining equipment.

Shopping Like You Know What You’re Doing

After all my research, here’s how to not get ripped off.

Engagement Ring Strategy

First rule: Go bigger. Whatever size you planned for a natural diamond, add half a carat with a lab-grown diamond. Same price, way more impressive.

Setting matters more than you think:

• Solitaire: Shows off the diamond, classic choice
• Halo: Ring of tiny diamonds around the main stone (makes it look HUGE)
• Three-stone: Past, present, future thing. Girls love the meaning

Building a Collection Without Going Broke

This is where lab-grown diamond jewelry really makes sense.

Diamond studs for everyday? Get ’em. Tennis bracelet for special occasions? Why not. That pendant you’ve been eyeing? Do it.

I know someone who bought an entire jewelry collection (earrings, necklace, bracelet, ring) for less than what ONE natural diamond ring would’ve cost.

Size Guidelines That Actually Help

Earrings:

• Daily wear: Half carat total (quarter each ear)
• Office appropriate: 1 carat total
• Going out: 2+ carats total

Necklaces:

• Subtle pendant: 0.3-0.5 carats
• Noticeable: 0.75-1 carat
• Statement piece: 1.5+ carats

The Smart Approach to Affordable Luxury Jewelry

Remember, I mentioned Icecartel? Here’s their deal.

They figured out most people want nice jewelry but can’t drop $10K on a chain. So they use lab diamonds and moissanite (which is basically a diamond’s cousin – almost as hard, just as sparkly).

Smart move: They put 14K gold over sterling silver. Sounds cheap? It’s not. The silver makes it strong, the gold makes it look expensive. Their special coating process means it won’t turn your neck green like that $50 chain from the mall.

They’re huge in hip-hop jewelry, but honestly? Anyone who wants to look good without selling their car should check them out. Best part – their stuff passes diamond testers. Your jeweler friend won’t even know.

Bottom Line After All This Research

Look, here’s the deal with lab-grown diamond jewelry. Both are real diamonds. One took 3 billion years, one took 2 months. Both will outlive you, your kids, and probably humanity.

Just pick whatever makes you (or your partner happy. Life’s too short to stress about rocks.

What do you think? Would you go lab or a natural? Let me know in the comments. Especially if you’ve bought either recently – curious what your experience was like!

SOURCE PAGE

The fintech founder had practised the pitch fifty times. Three minutes to explain why her lending platform was different. Why would it work where others failed? Why investors should care.

She delivered it perfectly at the demo day in November. The applause was polite. The questions were pointed. “How is this different from the forty other lending fintech companies?” She stumbled. Because it wasn’t, not really. Just another app promising financial inclusion without proving it could deliver.

She was competing with 499 other Nigerian fintech companies for attention from investors who had grown tired of similar promises. Only 27 would break through.

Nigerian fintech raised $230 million in 2025. On paper, that’s a 44% drop from the $410 million raised in 2024. But the real story isn’t about the money that disappeared. It’s about the question that emerged in its place.

“Smart capital is now asking whether fintechs are solving real problems that expand the economy or simply extracting rent from existing fragility,” says Kristin H. Wilson, Managing Partner at Innovate Africa Fund. It’s a brutal assessment, but one that explains why only 27 out of over 500 Nigerian fintech companies managed to raise funding of $100,000 or more this year.

The math is stark. In a country where more than 40% of tech startups are now fintech entities, only 5% could convince investors that their vision was worth backing.

Something fundamental shifted in 2025, and it wasn’t just the numbers.

When the music stopped

The party really ended when the mega deals dried up. In 2024, players like Moniepoint and Moove raised massive rounds that artificially inflated the sector’s total funding. Those outsized cheques masked an uncomfortable truth.

Very little capital was actually reaching new or experimental models that might genuinely expand economic opportunity for everyday Nigerians.

Read also: PayPal accepts defeat: now the fintech giant finally wants to play in Africa

By 2025, reality surfaced. Moniepoint raised another $90 million in October, nearly 40% of the entire year’s fintech funding. LemFi secured $53 million in January. Kredete closed $22 million. Raenest got $11 million.

Then came the smaller rounds like Carrot Credit’s $4.2 million, PaidHR’s $1.8 million, and Accrue’s $1.58 million. These deals represented the survivors. Everyone else got nothing.

Austin Okpagu, Nigeria Country Director at Verto, sees this as a correction rather than a collapse.

Austin Okpagu, Country Manager at Verto

“I believe the 2025 funding dip is much more about market correction rather than a definitive decline for Nigerian fintech,” he explains. “While 2024’s funding was heavily concentrated in mega deals like Moniepoint’s $110 million Series C, the current environment is forcing over 430 active fintech companies to pivot from burning cash, which used to be the norm, to generating revenue, back to basics, which is the core focus for investors nowadays.”

Read also: These 5 Nigerian fintechs achieved significant milestones in 2025

The shift from vanity metrics to profitability wasn’t optional. It was survival.

Multiple forces squeezed the sector simultaneously. The Central Bank of Nigeria imposed onboarding bans, stricter KYC enforcement, and heavy monetary penalties. Inflation hit 34.8% by December 2024.

Foreign exchange volatility made returns nearly impossible to model in naira, and capital harder to repatriate. Generalist venture capitalists either paused or significantly narrowed their exposure to Nigerian risk.

“We saw stricter CBN and FCCPC regulations serving as a filter, favouring institutional-grade startups over the high volume of smaller, non-compliant entrants,” Okpagu notes. “This appears to be the hallmark of 2025. Fewer African companies were accepted into Y Combinator when compared to previous years.”

The regulatory squeeze worked exactly as designed. It separated companies with real infrastructure from those running on borrowed time and borrowed capital. But it also raised an existential question about what Nigerian fintech had actually built.

The question nobody wanted to ask

Wilson goes further than most are willing to.

Nigerian fintech funding in 2025 likely contracted because capital finally began pricing in concentration risk, regulatory uncertainty, and a fundamental question: Are we building solutions that expand opportunity, or simply repackaging the same digital wallets?

She’s pointing at something uncomfortable. Nigeria now hosts more than 500 fintech companies, yet most are building variations of the same products. Digital wallets. Payment apps. Lending platforms that target the same thin slice of bankable consumers.

Meanwhile, productive credit for manufacturers remains scarce. Cash flow solutions for agricultural value chains are underfunded. Infrastructure that genuinely reduces the cost of doing business often goes unnoticed.

“The critical question has shifted from ‘Can we digitise existing behaviour?’ to ‘Are we creating new economic capacity?’” Wilson argues. “There were more apps, but not demonstrably more genuine financial resilience for households, productive capacity for SMEs, or expansion of economic opportunity.”

It’s harsh, but the funding numbers suggest investors agree.

Read also: New game: How CBN’s policies reshaped the Nigerian fintech landscape in 2025

Nikolai Barnwell, founder and CEO of pawaPay, has seen this movie before. “We’ve seen several bubbles and busts over the years since the birth of the mobile internet in Africa in the early 2010s. People get excited about Africa, but their attention span is short. So when there’s no immediate gratification for investors, they disappear again.”

Nikolai Barnwell, founder and CEO of pawaPay

He’s describing a pattern that repeats every few years. A new batch of funds discovers Africa, sells the dream, raises money on the promise of the continent, and starts spraying capital everywhere. Then reality sets in. Returns take longer than expected. The next cohort of investors arrives with fresh enthusiasm and short memories.

“The key is that the future potential of the continent is immense, but we’re still in the very early days,” Barnwell says. “We often compare it to the internet in the US in the mid-1990s. Most of all, the upside is still far in the future, and it requires patience and stamina to hang on long enough to reap the benefits.”

This tells us that African fintech is still being written, not finished.

What comes next

Tomi Davies, CiC at TVCLabs, refuses to see 2025 as a failure.

What we’re seeing in 2025 is not an innovation vacuum. It’s a discipline phase. The concentration of capital in players like Moniepoint reflects maturity, not stagnation. Markets that are still forming reward experimentation. Markets that are growing up reward execution.

He believes 2026 will bring what he calls “recomposition” rather than simple consolidation. “Yes, M&A will increase, particularly mid-market acquisitions that won’t make global headlines but will matter locally. At the same time, we’ll see more layered capital stacks. Local angels, diaspora syndicates, DFIs, venture debt, and revenue-based instruments working together.”

Tomi Davies, CiC at TVCLabs

The ecosystem that emerges, Davies argues, won’t depend on single large cheques from foreign VCs. It will blend multiple funding sources and require startups to prove value at every stage. “The ecosystems that thrive will be the ones that learn how to finance growth with multiple tools, not just one cheque size.”

Okpagu agrees the market is evolving, not dying. “The fintech sector is currently being sustained by M&A-led consolidation, as seen with Paystack’s acquisition of Brass, which allows the ecosystem to recycle talent and assets into more efficient models.“

Read also: Nigeria’s fintech regulation: Why the Senate is rewriting rules just 5 years after BOFIA 2020

The real test for Nigeria’s fintech

Nigerian fintech’s $230 million story in 2025 isn’t really about the funding gap. It’s about an industry being forced to answer harder questions about genuine value creation. The 27 companies that raised money this year presumably have answers. The other 473 are still searching.

Wilson’s question hangs in the air. Are Nigerian fintech entities expanding economic opportunity or extracting rent from existing fragility? The companies that figure out the right answer won’t just survive 2026. They’ll define what African fintech becomes for the next decade.

The future potential remains immense, as Barnwell insists. But patience and stamina aren’t enough anymore. Investors want proof that digital wallets can become economic engines. That’s the real test Nigerian fintech faces now. Not whether it can raise money, but whether it deserves to.

SOURCE PAGE

span { width: 5px; height: 5px; background-color: #5b5b5b; }#mailpoet_form_2{border-radius: 8px;color: #313131;text-align: left;}#mailpoet_form_2 form.mailpoet_form {padding: 0px;}#mailpoet_form_2{width: 100%;}#mailpoet_form_2 .mailpoet_message {margin: 0; padding: 0 20px;}
#mailpoet_form_2 .mailpoet_validate_success {color: #000000}
#mailpoet_form_2 input.parsley-success {color: #000000}
#mailpoet_form_2 select.parsley-success {color: #000000}
#mailpoet_form_2 textarea.parsley-success {color: #000000}

#mailpoet_form_2 .mailpoet_validate_error {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 input.parsley-error {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 select.parsley-error {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 textarea.textarea.parsley-error {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 .parsley-errors-list {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 .parsley-required {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 .parsley-custom-error-message {color: #cf2e2e}
#mailpoet_form_2 .mailpoet_paragraph.last {margin-bottom: 0} @media (max-width: 500px) {#mailpoet_form_2 {background-image: none;}} @media (min-width: 500px) {#mailpoet_form_2 .last .mailpoet_paragraph:last-child {margin-bottom: 0}} @media (max-width: 500px) {#mailpoet_form_2 .mailpoet_form_column:last-child .mailpoet_paragraph:last-child {margin-bottom: 0}}
]]>

SOURCE PAGE

The market seems to be content, for now at least, to keep betting big on AI.

While the value of some companies integral to the AI boom like Nvidia, Oracle and Coreweave have seen their value fall since the highs of the mid-2025, the US stockmarket remains dominated by investment in AI.

Of the S&P500 index of leading companies 75% of returns are thanks to 41 AI stocks. The “magnificent seven” of big tech companies, Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, Apple and Tesla, account for 37% of the S&P’s performance.

Such dominance, based almost exclusively on building one kind of AI – Large Language Models is sustaining fears of an AI bubble.

Nonsense, according to the AI titans.

“We are long, long away from that,” Jensen Huang, CEO of AI chip-maker Nvidia and the world’s first $5trn company, told Sky News last month.

Image:
Huang speaking to Sky News last month

Not everyone shares that confidence.

More on Artificial Intelligence

Too much confidence in one way of making AI, which so far hasn’t delivered profits anywhere close to the level of spending, must be testing the nerve of investors wondering where their returns will be.

The consequences of the bubble bursting, could be dire.

“If a few venture capitalists get wiped out, nobody’s gonna be really that sad,” said Gary Marcus, AI scientist and emeritus professor at New York University.

But with a large part of US economic growth this year down to investment in AI, the “blast radius”, could be much greater, said Marcus.

“In the worst case, what happens is the whole economy falls apart, basically. Banks aren’t liquid, we have bailouts, and taxpayers have to pay for it.”

Image:
Gary Marcus

Could that happen?

Well there are some ominous signs.

By one estimate Microsoft, Amazon, Google Meta and Oracle are expected to spend around $1trn on AI by 2026.

Open AI, maker of the first breakthrough Large Language Model ChatGPT, is committing to spend $1.4trn over the coming three years.

But what are investors in those companies getting in return for their investment? So far, not very much.

Take OpenAI, it’s expected to make little more than $20bn in profit in 2025. A lot of money, but nothing like enough to sustain spending of $1.4trn.

The size of the AI boom – or bubble depending on your view – comes down to the way it’s being built.

Computer cities

The AI revolution came in early 2023 when OpenAI released ChatGPT4.

The AI represented a mind-blowing improvement in natural language, computer coding and image generation ability that grew almost entirely out of one advance: Scale

GPT-4 required 3,000 to 10,000 times more computer power – or compute – than its predecessor GPT-2.

To make it smarter, it was trained on far more data. GPT-2 was trained on 1.5 billion “parameters” compared perhaps 1.8 trillion for GPT-4 – essentially all the text, image and video data on the internet.

Image:
An Amazon Web Services AI data centre in the US. Credit: Noah Berger/AWS

The leap in performance was so great, “Artificial General Intelligence” or AGI that rivals humans on most tasks, would come from simply repeating that trick.

And that’s what’s been happening. Demand for frontline GPU chips to train AI soared – and hence the share price of Nvidia which makes them doing the same.

The bulldozers then moved in to build the next generation of mega-data centres to run the chips and make the next generations of AI.

And they moved fast.

Stargate, announced in January by Donald Trump, Open AI’s Sam Altman and other partners, already has two vast data centre buildings in operation.

By mid-2026 the complex in central Texas is expected to cover an area the size of Manhattan’s Central Park.

And already, it’s beginning to look like small fry.

Meta’s $27bn Hyperion data centre being built in Louisiana is closer to the size of Manhattan itself.

The data centre is expected to consume twice as much power as the nearby city of New Orleans.

Threads

This content is provided by Threads, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Threads cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.


Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Threads cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Threads cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once

The rampant increase in power demand is putting a major squeeze on America’s power grid with some data centres having to wait years for grid connections.

A problem for some, but not, say optimists, firms like Microsoft, Meta and Google, with such deep pockets they can build their own power stations.

Once these vast AI brains are built and switched on however, will they print money?

Stale Chips

Unlike other expensive infrastructure like roads, rail or power networks, AI data centres are expected to need constant upgrades.

Investors have good estimates for “depreciation curves” of various types of infrastructure asset. But not so for cutting-edge purpose-built AI data centres which barely existed five years ago.

Image:
Credit: NVIDIA

Nvidia, the leading maker of AI chips, has been releasing new, more powerful processors every year or so. It claims their latest chips will run for three to six years.

But there are doubts.

Image:
Bale playing Burry in The Big Short. Credit: Jaap Buiten/THA/Shutterstock

Fund manager Michael Burry, immortalised in the movie The Big Short, for predicting America’s sub-prime crash, recently announced he was betting against AI stocks.

His reasoning, that AI chips will need replacing every three years and given competition with rivals for the latest chips, perhaps faster than that.

Cooling, switching and wiring systems of data centres also wears down over time and is likely to need replacing within 10 years.

A few months ago, the Economist magazine estimated that if AI chips alone lose their edge every three years, it would reduce the combined value of the 5 big tech companies by $780bn.

If depreciation rates were two years, that number goes up to $1.6trn.

Factor in that depreciation and it further widens the already colossal gap between their AI spending and likely revenues.

By one estimate, the big tech will need to see $2trn in profit by 2030 to justify their AI costs.

Are people buying it?

And then there’s the question of where the profits are to justify the massive AI investments.

AI adoption is undoubtedly on the rise.

You only have to skim your social media to witness the rise of AI-generated text, images and videos.

Read more from Sky News:
Epstein victims react to partial release of files
Fears Palestine Action hunger striker will die in prison

Kids are using it for homework, their parents for research, or help composing letters and reports.

But beyond casual use and fantastical cat videos, are people actually profiting from it – and therefore likely to pay enough for it to satisfy trillion-dollar investments?

There’s early signs current AI could revolutionise some markets, like software and drug development, creative industries and online shopping,

And by some measures, the future looks promising, OpenAI claims to have 800 million “weekly active users” across its products, double what it was in February.

However, only 5% of those are paying subscribers.

And when you look at adoption by businesses – where the real money is for Big Tech – things don’t look much better.

According to the US census bureau at the start of 2025, 8-12% of companies said they are starting to use AI to produce goods and services.

For larger companies – with more money to spend on AI perhaps – adoption grew to 14% in June but has fallen to 12% in recent months.

According to analysis by McKinsey the vast majority of companies are still in the pilot stage of AI rollout or looking at how to scale their use.

In a way, this makes total sense. Generative AI is a new technology, with even the companies building still trying to figure out what it’s best for.

But how long will shareholders be prepared to wait before profits come even close to paying off the investments they’ve made?

Especially, when confidence in the idea that current AI models will only get better is beginning to falter.

Is scaling failing?

Large Language Models are undoubtedly improving.

According to industry “benchmarks”, technical tests that evaluate AI’s ability to perform complex maths, coding or research tasks show performance is tracking the scale of computing power being added. Currently doubling every six months or so.

But on real-world tasks, the evidence is less strong.

LLMs work by making statistical predictions of what answers should be based on their training data, without actually understanding what that data actually “means.”

They struggle with tasks that involve understanding how the world works and learning from it.

Their architecture doesn’t have any kind of long-term memory allowing them to learn what types of data is important and what’s not. Something that human brains do without having to be told.

For that reason, while they make huge improvements on certain tasks, they consistently make the same kind of mistakes, and fail at the same kind of tasks.

“Is the belief that if you just 100x the scale, everything would be transformed? I don’t think that’s true,” Ilya Sutskever, the co-founder of OpenAI told the Dwarkesh Podcast last month.

The AI scientist who helped pioneer ChatGPT, before leaving OpenAI predicted, “it’s back to the age of research again, just with big computers”.

Will those who’ve taken big bets with AI be satisfied with modest future improvements, while they wait for potential customers to figure out how to make AI work for them?

“It’s really just a scaling hypothesis, a guess that this might work. It’s not really working,” said Prof Marcus,

“So you’re spending trillions of dollars, profits are negligible and depreciation is high. It does not make sense. And so then it’s a question of when the market realises that.”

SOURCE PAGE

At this time of year we’re all trying to avoid falling sick – but are you able to detect the subtle signs that someone is ill?

While coughing, sneezing and nose-blowing are obvious clues, there are faint signals that can also indicate a person is worth avoiding.

Researchers carried out a study asking participants to analyse pictures to see how well they could detect lassitude – the facial signs someone is unwell.

They were shown different images of 12 individuals, who had a photo taken when they were healthy and another taken when they had Covid, a cold or the flu.

Overall, they found that women were more accurate than men at distinguishing between a person who was sick or unwell.

This could be because women, who have historically been the primary caregiver for infants, have undergone evolutionary pressure to recognise sickness early.

‘When feeling sick, people reliably exhibit observable signs in their faces. People are, overall, sensitive to the lassitude expression in naturally sick faces,’ the team, from the University of Miami, said.

So, can you tell which of these images were taken when the individual was ill?

At this time of year we’re all trying to avoid falling sick – but can you tell which image shows an ill person? Left is picture A, right is picture B

Of these two images, which do you think shows the person when they are sick? Experts say women are better at detecting small clues. Left is picture C, right is picture D

Participants were also shown images of this individual – which do you think she looks the most ill in? Left is picture E, right is picture F

The researchers revealed some telltale clues that indicate someone is unwell.

These include red or sleepy/relaxed eyes, drooping eyelids, pale and slightly parted lips and drooping corners of the mouth.

Other indications can be clammy or puffy skin, or a red face.

From the images above, pictures A, D and F are of individuals who are sick.

Upon closer inspection, picture A shows the person appearing slightly more shiny – or clammy – than picture B, when they are healthy.

In picture D, taken when the person was unwell, the eyelids droop more and the lips appear paler than in picture C.

They also seem to have more of a reddish glow – another signal that can indicate illness.

While pictures E and F are a bit trickier, you would be correct if you said the individual is sick in picture F.

Now you know what to look for, can you tell which of these pictures shows the woman when she is sick?

The researchers found that women were able to perceive subtle signs of illness better than the men involved in the study

Subtle signs of illness

• Red or sleepy/relaxed eyes
• Drooping eyelids
• Pale/slightly-parted lips
• Drooping corners of the mouth
• Clammy or puffy skin
• A red face 

In these two pictures, it is slightly easier to work out which one was taken when this woman was ill.

In the second image, she has a turned-down mouth and obviously drooping eyelids, indicating she is unwell.

She also appears paler and slightly clammy.

Writing in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, the team said: ‘Overall, the current study found that females are better than males at recognizing facial sickness based on ratings of people’s faces.

‘This finding indicates that females may be more attuned to natural facial cues of sickness.’

The researchers said future studies will be necessary to disentangle what mechanisms may have shaped these sex differences.

‘Nonetheless, our findings suggest individual differences in the ability to perceive facial signs of lassitude, with some individuals—particularly males—potentially benefiting from support in developing this skill,’ they concluded.

This could help contribute to reducing the transmission of disease.

The UKHSA has recently shared advice on symptoms to help people determine whether they have cold, the flu or Covid.

A cold is usually characterised by a blocked or runny nose, sneezing and a sore throat, and symptoms occur gradually.

Flu signs and symptoms, meanwhile, develop very rapidly and extreme tiredness is common. Other symptoms include a fever and body aches.

While Covid symptoms have changed over time, some of the most prevalent include a change in sense of taste or smell and a particularly painful sore throat.

SOURCE PAGE