• Discord is working on a new 'Game Mode' feature to reduce CPU and GPU usage while gaming
• The new feature seems to be an auto-toggle of the Reduced Motion feature on the desktop app when a game is running
• It's not yet clear if any improvements will be made to resource consumption while screen sharing

Discord is infamous for its high RAM, CPU, and GPU consumption while gaming, and some of those aspects are finally being addressed.

As reported by VideoCardz, Discord is working on 'Game Mode,' a new feature for the Discord client that frees up CPU and GPU resources while a game is running by disabling effects and animations for smoother gameplay.

Discord already offers options to reduce system resource use, notably Reduced Motion, which reduces the intensity of animations and hover effects when navigating the client. Users can also disable hardware acceleration, which stops the app from using the GPU for better performance within it, and disabling it should stop "visual glitches like frame drops in games or performance problems".

Game Mode sounds a lot like Reduced Motion, with DiscordPreviews (on X) describing how it reduces animations and effects automatically once a game is detected. With this in mind, Game Mode might not be the best answer to solving Discord's system resource issues, especially since there's no mention of RAM usage reduction.

It's also worth noting that Discord is an Electron-based application (a framework for desktop applications that uses web technology), which means Discord's web app is essentially running in an embedded browser engine known as Chromium — the same engine Google Chrome is built on, which is another app that is heavy on system resources.

What about screen sharing?

It's unclear if Game Mode will do anything new other than serve as an automatic toggle for Reduced Motion while gaming. In that case, Discord still has a long way to go in ensuring the desktop app doesn't continue to creep up as a system resource issue for gamers.

At the very least, having Discord devs address the issues is a great start, but it remains to be seen if Game Mode will also help with keeping CPU and GPU usage as low as possible while screen sharing.

Unsurprisingly, the latter uses high amounts of system resources, especially when streaming at higher resolutions, but it's more reasonable compared to simple voice chat or the app being open in the background and still hogging memory.

Still, in-game frame rates can suffer when using screen share, even if the resolution is below 1080p, and this is far more problematic on lower-end systems with less RAM. Solutions such as a capture card on a separate system (or specifically a laptop) can help solve game performance problems completely, but it's not exactly an affordable option.

If Discord can optimize the desktop app or move away from its Electron-based nature, it could go a long way toward removing all of the major pain points.

Since the Oculus Quest 2, the VR industry has been chasing a high point that seems impossible to re-summit — let alone surpass. I mean, how can you compete with popularity propelled by global pandemic-caused lockdowns and ultra-low costs when people are no longer trapped in their homes and facing down RAM-crisis-fuelled tech price hikes?

You can’t. But the Meta VR Glasses give me hope that'll change, that VR is on an upward swing again.

The Meta Quest 3 tried its best, but improved specs, full-color mixed reality, and incredible exclusives like Batman: Arkham Shadow and Marvel’s Deadpool VR seemingly weren’t enough of a draw for people. I loved the system, but checking the most recent (August 2026) Steam Hardware Survey (which should include the most dedicated, most likely to upgrade players, as the Quest systems aren’t native PCVR headsets), the Quest 2 still narrowly tops the list despite being pulled from shelves over two years ago and being replaced close to three years ago by the Quest 3.

The Apple Vision Pro was much hyped before launch, but it seemingly had even less staying power than the Quest 3 thanks to its extremely high price. Samsung’s Galaxy XR headset, as much as I like it, is a gadget I wouldn’t be surprised if even most techie people didn’t know it existed.

You could do a whole analytical breakdown on why each device struggled to hit the mark, but as I see it, there’s one key issue: value.

The Quest 2 was incredible value. At £299 / $299 / AU$479 it’s approaching tech impulse-buy territory. You can grab it on a whim and be fairly confident you’ll get enough use out of it to justify the price whether you’re stuck inside because of Covid-19 or not — even just as a novelty you only get out on occasion, or to see your nan get wowed by some simple demo app.

At $499.99 / £479.99 / AU$799.99 (its original launch price), the Meta Quest 3 is instantly a much harder value proposition to justify. For a start, you need to spend a lot more time using the Quest 3 before it becomes ‘worth it.’ But for gamers, the headset costs as much as a PS5 disc edition — or a digital-only PS5 plus a game or two — and even as a VR enjoyer, it’s easy to understand why people would favour the Sony console and its incredible performance and game catalogue to fill their time.

It’s also still a bit too bulky to wear all day every day for productivity tasks — something Meta was ironing out at the time on the software side too. Big screen entertainment wasn’t ideal either — the Quest 3 lacked many streaming services, and the few it did have often relied on terrible apps that were terrible to use and didn’t support high-quality streams.

The Vision Pro and Samsung Galaxy XR headset solved some of these issues, but they didn’t address headset bulk — the Apple Vision Pro actually weighs a good chunk more than a Quest 3 or Quest 2 — and they’re also a lot more expensive (costing $3,499 / £3,199 / AU$5,999 and $1,799 / £1,699 respectively).

To get your money’s worth, you’d ideally use these headsets every day to help maximise your productivity across app windows, and to kick back with some entertainment most evenings — or at least fairly regularly. But as someone who tried doing this for a week with the Galaxy XR (the lighter of the two), it’s simply not a comfortable enough experience — my neck wanted to give up after a day and a half.

They’re both great for using from time to time, but they cost far too much to be something you wear infrequently.

Emerging from the ashes

The Meta VR Glasses, however, hit the nail on the head in (almost) every regard. At only around 3.52oz /100g, they are a device you can easily wear for hours, and Meta has finally improved its entertainment and productivity software support.

The only notable negative aspect is the price. $1,299 (pricing TBC in other regions) is cheaper than its current rivals, but still four times more expensive than the Oculus Quest 2. With its weight, I can definitely see myself wearing this headset often enough to make that price justified, but for less VR-forward folks it might not seem that way — especially after our recent flops.

I hope they can give it a try, however, as I fell in love with the Meta VR Glasses instantly, and I expect plenty more fans will materialize once they launch in 2027.

Hardware aside, I’m also simply glad to see the return of VR as a descriptor.

I get that technically the VR Glasses are a mixed reality device, but MR never really took off as a descriptor (it’s quite similar to the shortening of mister, Mr), and I don’t love XR — it’s too generic to really mean anything because it includes AR, VR, MR, and all different ways these technologies can manifest.

VR headsets are a known quantity, and the VR Glasses do feel like the spiritual successor to the Quest headsets Meta and Oculus pioneered. It’s a small thing, but I like that VR has returned — rising from the ashes in a manner that feels appropriate for the Project Phoenix device.

Rebuilding what it broke?

The elephant in the room for many will be that Meta contributed somewhat to the sense of doom and gloom in VR after it made sweeping cuts through its Reality Labs teams and first-party development studios — canning projects in the process.

We’ve also seen third-party VR studios close or downsize since Meta’s announcement as it becomes clear VR isn't in quite the boom period it once was. Showcasing Meta's situation was merely part of a bigger trend of VR struggles, rather than an isolated case of awfulness.

It’s clear that VR has been generally struggling, but I’m hopeful the VR Glasses, in conjunction with Xreal Aura (which ticks a lot of the same boxes) and other future headsets / glasses, will help to bring excitement, accessibility, and users back to VR.

We’ll have to wait and see, but I think the future of VR is looking a little brighter again.

Around the world, governments are changing how e-invoicing works. Instead of checking transactions after the fact, many are moving towards real-time clearance models.

Brazil’s NF-e system was one of the earliest examples of this shift. Italy’s SDI model follows a similar approach, where an invoice must pass through the tax authority’s exchange system and its required checks to be considered issued for tax purposes.

In practice, this means compliance is no longer something that happens after a transaction but increasingly sits within the transaction process itself.

In some markets, goods can be left sitting in warehouses until the required electronic document is authorized. A process that once happened in the background now sits directly in the path of business operations, determining whether products move, payments are processed, and supply chains keep running. If this sounds familiar, it is because we have seen the same shift in air travel.

If you have flown in the last twenty years, you know the drill. Passports, visas, digital check-in, and security checkpoints all need to be cleared before a journey can begin. It used to be far simpler.

Once upon a time, passengers could simply turn up at the airport, buy a ticket, and walk straight up to the gate without a second thought. Today, every stage of the journey depends on passing a series of checks before moving forward. Tax compliance works the same way. Think of clearance as the transaction’s boarding pass. Without it, nothing moves.

The compliance checkpoint has moved earlier in the process, and it now touches logistics just as much as it touches finance. Businesses can no longer afford to treat tax as a back-office function.

When invoice clearance becomes a prerequisite for shipping goods, compliance becomes an operational issue. A disruption can delay shipments, interrupt cash flow, and disrupt day-to-day operations.

The concentration problem

For businesses, real-time clearance brings tangible benefits. An invoice that once took days, or even weeks, to process can clear in seconds - helping organizations improve cash flow and reduce administrative delays. But greater efficiency often comes with a trade-off. In this case, the trade-off is concentration.

When compliance depended on paper processes and manual checks, risk was spread thin across multiple workflows and touchpoints. Today, that risk is increasingly concentrated within a small number of digital systems that handle everything from billing details and vendor data to banking information and payment instructions. This concentration unsurprisingly draws the attention of cybercriminals.

Every integration between billing tools, software providers, and external systems creates entry points for hackers. Businesses with integrated, well-governed systems are generally better positioned to manage this risk. And when invoicing is treated as a standalone system, the connections between it and the rest of the business can become weak points for attackers to exploit.

This is where the language around compliance needs to shift. E-invoicing is not just a platform for exchanging invoices, it is a critical business system which requires security and governance built in from day one. After all, a cleared invoice sitting inside a poorly protected environment has done nothing more than move its potential exposure to somewhere harder to see.

The digital passport problem

A boarding pass gets a passenger through the gate, but it is only one piece of the journey. Behind it sits a network of systems responsible for everything from identity checks and payments to security screening and baggage handling. Tax compliance is beginning to look the same.

Clearance confirms that a transaction has passed a compliance check, but it says little about the wider environment behind it. Businesses still need confidence that their data remains accurate, access controls are maintained, and critical integrations continue to function as intended. That is the digital passport problem.

Passing a check is not the same as proving that the wider system remains trustworthy. As e-invoicing becomes more deeply embedded in business operations, keeping that wider environment secure and reliable becomes just as important as achieving compliance in the first place. And that’s where AI can make a real difference.

Just as modern airports rely on intelligent systems to spot anomalies, identify risks, and keep passengers moving, AI can help businesses monitor increasingly complex compliance environments. However, AI does not fix poor governance or clean up any bad data. Applied to a well-managed environment, AI can help identify anomalies early and improve decision-making.

Applied to a poorly managed one, it simply accelerates existing issues and can make them harder to contain. Good people, good processes, and good data need to come first, and AI can act as an accelerant.

Proving it continuously

Businesses need to continuously demonstrate that the systems supporting compliance are secure, well-governed, and resilient as mandates and threats evolve. For years, fragmentation was the challenge. Different portals, tools, and countries each introduced their own complexity and their own weak points.

Consolidation closes many of those gaps, but it only works if you treat the consolidated system with the same seriousness as the mandate that created it. Get it wrong, and instead of managing multiple scattered risks, businesses can find themselves relying on a single, highly attractive target.

Security has moved earlier and become more continuous. It now depends on systems working together, rather than any single checkpoint. Businesses that treat real-time e-invoicing purely as a compliance exercise are missing half the picture. The other half is making sure the system carrying that compliance is one they trust.

Just as a boarding pass is only useful if the systems behind it are secure and working together as intended, a cleared invoice is only as valuable as the environment supporting it. Businesses need confidence in the systems carrying it, not the transaction alone.

Real-time e-invoicing may have started as a compliance requirement, but it is increasingly becoming an operational one. The businesses that succeed will be those that treat compliance as something that must be continuously demonstrated, monitored, and maintained.

Checkout our list of the best accounting software for small business.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

There's an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. When there's no easy way out, we're forced to think differently and come up with something new. AI offers a shortcut around that. It gives instant answers with almost no effort needed.

That's great for productivity in the short term, but it comes with a hidden cost. It quietly takes away the pressure that pushes people, and whole organizations, to get better at solving problems.

Is that a problem? Not straight away. Spending less time on a task means lower costs and more capacity for other things. But over time, it risks wearing down the skills a business actually needs to keep coming up with new ideas. We call this the "productivity trap": you get faster in the short run, but slowly lose the ability to think for yourself.

We've spent time studying how organizations learn. We built a model looking at how people decide whether to work through a problem on their own or just reuse a solution someone else already found.

The pattern is clear. When "good enough" answers are free and instantly available, people reuse them more and explore less. Teams start settling on the same handful of approaches. Output goes up, but fresh thinking quietly dries up.

This isn't just a theory. A well-known 2015 study looked at computational biologists and found that when they could easily see each other's half-finished work, they spent more time polishing what already existed and less time trying new approaches. The range of ideas being explored shrank.

We've seen something similar in our own workplaces – with weekly sessions set up to share new AI tools were well attended, but over time they produced fewer genuinely new ideas. A small group of people kept doing the exploring. Everyone else just waited to pick up whatever they found. For business leaders, the lesson is fairly simple. AI changes how people learn at work.

If a decent strategy memo or risk assessment can be produced in minutes, fewer people will bother doing the slower work that actually builds understanding, like talking to customers, checking the numbers themselves, or testing their own assumptions.

Left unchecked, this leaves you with a team that's good at getting answers out of AI but not very good at judging whether those answers are actually right.

Adding some friction back in

One option is to slow down how much AI your team uses. But that gives up real efficiency for a benefit that's hard to measure, which is a tough sell to any leadership team focused on this quarter's numbers. A better approach is what we call "strategic friction": a small, deliberate step you add between an employee and an AI generated answer, so they have to think for themselves before they get it.

This isn't about adding pointless red tape. It's about making sure that before someone benefits from a ready-made AI answer, they've spent enough time on the problem to actually understand it.

Slightly counterintuitively, our research suggests this doesn't slow people down overall. It speeds them up, because someone who has already wrestled with a problem is much better placed to spot when an AI answer is wrong, and to make it better. There are a few practical ways to do this, from simple rule changes to more involved system design.

The easiest option is asking for proof of independent effort first. Before someone is allowed to use AI to draft a market assessment, ask them to write up their own rough version first, even if it's incomplete, showing what they already know and where they got stuck. This needs no new tools or software, just a change in how you work.

A step further is designing your AI tools to ask questions before giving answers. If someone asks for a competitor analysis, the tool could first ask them for a few things they already know or have noticed. Then it builds its answer around that. This gets people thinking before they receive an answer, and it usually makes the AI's output better too, since it's working from fresh information instead of generic guesses.

The most involved option is building tools that only unlock once someone has put in their own input. For example, someone might need to upload their own starting assumptions before they're allowed to generate a risk assessment. It takes more work to set up, but it makes sure every AI output is a genuine team effort between the person and the tool, not just something handed over wholesale.

Not every task needs this. For simple, low stakes jobs, like formatting a slide or summarizing some notes, speed is all that matters, so let AI do its thing. Save the friction for the work where you actually need people to think, not just churn things out.

Spotting the builders

There's a hiring angle here too. In a workplace where everyone has access to AI, the person who gives the "right answer" is no longer that impressive. What matters more is how they got there.

Look for people who use AI selectively and question what it gives them, rather than people who just accept whatever it produces and pass it on. Simply watching how someone uses AI, whether they push back on it or just go along with it, tells you a lot in an interview or a performance review.

AI is going to keep making businesses faster. The harder job for leaders is making sure that speed doesn't quietly wear away the judgement and creativity the business relies on. A bit of well-placed friction, built into your tools, your workflows and how you hire, is what keeps a business coming up with new ideas instead of just churning out answers.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Monzo Business report finds UK SMBs are spending, despite economic headwinds
• More than half (56%) of UK SMEs are confident about growth over the next year
• Yet businesses are now losing an average 53 minutes every working day on financial admin

Despite the economic headwinds plauging the UK in recent years, new research has claimed the country's small and medium businesses (SMBs) are still willing to splash the cash on new technology.

A report from Monzo Business found spending on software is up 15% over the past year, showing an encouraging upswing in belief across the industry.

Overall, more than half (56%) of SMEs said they were confident about their growth prospects over the next year, and nearly two-thirds (62%) reporting that they plan, or hope to grow their teams over the coming year.

Growth vs admin

Monzo Business' Money Moves Report surveyed a thousand SMBs across the UK, finding businesses are investing in the tools they need to grow.

However challenges remain: almost half (46%) naming rising costs as one of their biggest barriers to growth over the next year, followed by economic uncertainty (33%) and the tax burden (26%).

Financial admin was also revealed as another major headache, with UK SMBs currently spend on average around 53 minutes every working day on tasks such as processing invoices and expenses.

The frustration was clear to see, as nearly half of businesses (49%) said financial admin takes too long, with 39% saying it actively holds their business back from growing. This even stretches to some missing opportunities to invest in tech, equipment or premises (21%), pursuing new markets (20%), and hiring staff (18%).

Overall, nearly two-thirds (63%) of SMBs said simpler financial admin would free up time to focus on the things that matter most to their business, such as strategy, sales and building customer relationships. With extra time, one in three (33%) would pursue new customers or markets, 31% would invest in equipment, technology or premises and 26% would hire new staff.

“Small businesses are confident about the year ahead and thinking about how they can grow," noted Jordan Shwide, General Manager at Monzo Business.

"However, running a business still comes with far too much financial admin, and our research shows that this isn’t simply an inconvenience - it can take time away from growth."

CyberLink has long been one of our favorite alternatives to Adobe's creative suite, and currently there's a big sale on standalone alone apps as well as CyberLink Director Suite, which bundles the photo, video, and audio editor software alongside an audio editor and large royalty-free stock library.

• Best for: Content creators who regularly edit video, photographs and audio and want their main creative applications bundled into one subscription.

• The deal: CyberLink Director Suite is now $110 (was $150) for an annual subscription, and £95 (was £130) in the UK. Standalone apps are also discounted in the US here (click here) and in the UK here.

• Why we like it: CyberLink's creative tools have consistently reviewed well during our tests, offering an excellent all-rounder entry-point into video and photo editing. They're surprisingly advanced but beginner-friendly, and this is a good way to get the full suite.

Why we recommend it

Director Suite combines three powerful creative tools. PowerDirector 365 handles video production, PhotoDirector 365 covers photo editing and graphic design, and AudioDirector 365 provides tools for audio restoration, recording and mixing.

All three core apps have reviewed well in our tests.

In his 4-star review of PowerDirector, our expert Steve said it "remains one of the best video editing software for beginners, as well as intermediate editors." He gave PhotoDirector 4.5-stars and called it a "powerful multi-faceted beast, which not only allows you to organize and improve the quality of your photos, but also offers Photoshop-like compositing tools, as well as numerous generative AI features."

In her 4-star review, our audio expert Angel said AudioDirector "goes from strength to strength using powerful AI tools to separate elements giving even total novices to recording control over their material."

The applications are designed to work together, so projects can be passed between them without repeatedly rendering files. There's plenty of AI features too.

Price context & historical value

At $109.99 a year instead of $149.99, you're saving $40 on Director Suite, equivalent to 27% off. The annual subscription works out at just $9.17 per month, compared with $29.99 if you pay monthly, which would add up to $359.88 over a year — $249.89 more.

UK buyers can save 27%, with the price of Director Suite reduced from £129.99 to £94.99, equivalent to just £7.92 per month.

For more choices, check out our roundups of the best photo editors, and best video editing software.

Should you buy it?

✅ Buy CyberLink Director Suite if...

You regularly work with video, photographs and audio and would prefer to have an integrated collection of creative applications than subscribe to different products. Director Suite also provides access to millions of royalty-free videos, images and music tracks from iStock by Getty Images and the Meta Sound Collection.

❌ Skip CyberLink Director Suite if...

You only need one type of editor. If almost everything you create is video, for example, paying for a suite containing dedicated photo and audio tools may not be necessary.

• US: Shop discounted creative software at CyberLink
• UK: See the full sale at CyberLink

One of the advantages of having written about tech for as long as I have is that you start to notice when the same ideas come around decade after decade, in different shapes and sizes. Especially the bad ones.

12 years ago Google invented something called Google Glass — a set of glasses complete with a camera so you could record what you were looking at — and it was so roundly hated by everyone that we all breathed a collective sigh of relief when they went away.

But now it's 2026 and smart glasses are back, powered by AI, and tied in with a world-famous fashion brand, but fundamentally they still have exactly the same problem, which still hasn't been fixed: they enable people to record other people without their consent.

The problem is that none of this should have come as a surprise. The privacy risks of putting a camera on somebody's face weren't merely predictable — they were predicted. Women were raising concerns about men using Google Glass to record them more than a decade ago.

And yet here we are again.

The curious case of Google Glass

Let’s remind ourselves what happened the first time that smart glasses arrived.

Google Glass arrived in 2013. It puts a small heads-up display and camera on the wearer's face, allowing them to take photos and record video from their point of view. Almost immediately, privacy became one of the defining controversies around it.

By 2014, women were explicitly raising issues of abuse. Wired reported that women were particularly interested in technology that could detect and block Glass because of concerns about men covertly recording them in nightclubs. "Even if they didn’t know if the device was recording, they felt threatened by its presence", said Oliver, the creator of the detection device.

Google Glass wearers were being called “Glassholes,” businesses were banning the device, and Google itself was publishing etiquette guidance because of complaints about people creepily filming others without permission.

By 2015, consumer Glass effectively died. Privacy wasn't its only problem — its price, awkward appearance, and lack of compelling everyday uses all played a part — but by January 2015 Google had stopped selling the consumer Explorer Edition. Glass survived as an enterprise product before Google finally discontinued the Enterprise Edition in 2023.

Smart glasses didn’t die with Google Glass. They had simply retreated to a lab to lick their wounds and wait for that vital next piece of technology that would make them relevant again. That technology was AI. In 2023, AI-powered smart glasses, partnered with leading fashion brands, started to emerge, with Meta leading the charge with its Ray-Ban Meta glasses.

This time they looked much more like ordinary glasses. Meta had also found the compelling use cases that Google Glass struggled to provide: its glasses could use AI to answer questions about what you were looking at, give you directions, and translate signs and conversations. But they could also still record what, or more importantly, who, you were looking at without needing that person's consent.

It’s like women don’t exist

Frankly, I don’t think Meta should have released them with that ability, but here we are. It’s like we’ve learned nothing from the Google Glass debacle. Almost as soon as the next generation of smart glasses emerged they were being used to harass women and record them without their consent or knowledge.

Researchers at the University of Sydney have been studying hundreds of social-media videos involving smart glasses and found men using them to approach and record women without their knowledge, including at gyms, workplaces and beaches. Australia's eSafety Commissioner says the technology can amplify gendered harms because recording can be almost undetectable, and specifically highlights pickup-artist content in which women often don't know they're being filmed.

The researchers analysed 350 publicly available Instagram videos from 2023–2026. In a subset of covert POV videos, around 60% of interactions were classified as potential harassment. And in about 43% of the videos, women were subjected to further abusive online commentary, sometimes exposing personal information.

These are real victims. CBS interviewed a woman who discovered she'd been secretly recorded only after the resulting video went viral, attracting more than 200,000 views. Her reaction said it all: “I had no say.”

And France has now opened an investigation involving alleged sexual harassment and discreet smart-glasses recording.

I don't think these products were designed to harm women. That's almost the point. Too often, the technology industry seems to design products around what the person using them can do, without giving enough consideration to the person standing on the other side of the technology. And when the potential for abuse disproportionately affects women, that's a particularly serious blind spot. Women have historically been underrepresented in the data and testing used for product design, with designers still describing the male body as the implicit default.

Meta clearly did think about privacy. The glasses have a recording LED specifically designed to tell people nearby when the camera is being used. But if your safeguard against covert recording is a tiny light on the front of the glasses — one that people have found ways to conceal or disable — is that really enough?

Did it consider what happens when a man wearing an almost invisible camera approaches a woman who's alone?

Meta's audio-only smart glasses

Yesterday at Meta Connect, Meta announced a new version of its smart glasses called the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses, which don’t have a camera. They got barely a mention in Zuckerberg’s keynote, but I wonder if they were released because of the existential threat to its business that the now commonly used “perv glasses” moniker poses.

Ray-Ban Meta Audio has no camera. You can still listen to music, make calls, translate conversations, and talk to Meta's AI, but the person sitting opposite you no longer needs to wonder whether they're being secretly recorded.

Meta hasn't said the Audio glasses exist because of the privacy backlash, and removing the camera inevitably removes some genuinely useful features too. For visually impaired people in particular, a camera combined with AI can be transformative.

But Ray-Ban Meta Audio proves something important: smart glasses don't have to contain a camera.

Twelve years ago, women were already warning that putting inconspicuous cameras on people's faces could enable men to record them without their knowledge, and today researchers are documenting precisely that behavior.

Google Glass users became known as “Glassholes” because people hated that the person they were talking to was recording them. Twelve years later, we're having the same argument about “perv glasses.”

That's what makes me angry. This wasn't an unforeseeable consequence of some revolutionary new technology. We'd already run this experiment and realized that these should never have got out of the lab in the first place.

Among the host of new products that Meta unveiled at its Connect event this week — an AI Tamagotchi, anyone? — we got the Meta Ray-Ban Gen 3 smart glasses. Here we're going to break down all the key specs of the new specs, and in particular how they compare to the model that launched this time last year.

In our Meta Ray-Ban Gen 2 review, we praised the AI-powered glasses for bringing with them improvements in camera quality, battery life, and design, and there are upgrades to talk about with the third-generation too.

Whether you already own a Gen 2 pair and are thinking of making the switch to the new models, or you're considering getting involved in smart glasses for the first time, here's how the 2025 and 2026 versions compare.

Pricing and design

The Meta Ray-Ban Gen 3 are out now and yours for a starting price of $449 / £409 / AU$679, which is a modest price bump over the previous versions. Meta says the overall design is slimmer and more comfortable to wear compared to the Gen 2, though the weights listed on Meta's store suggest there isn't much change there (at least in terms of the Wayfarer, which is the only style carried over).

There are three different styles to choose from. You've got the Wayfarer we saw with Gen 2 (also available in large), and two new additions: the iconic Aviator design, plus the Zena, which Meta describes as "a bold new cat-eye frame that makes a confident statement". A total of 27 lens and color combinations are available across these frame shapes, with colors including Black and Havana (a mix of dark and light brown).

When the Meta Ray-Ban Gen 2 launched, they were available for $379 / £379 / AU$599 and up, and at the time of writing, that price hasn't dropped with the arrival of the Gen 3 models. All three styles are still available to buy too: the Wayfarer (in standard or large), the cat-eye Skyler, and the more rounded Headliner.

At launch time, Meta mentioned 27 lens and color combinations for the Gen 2 glasses, but those combinations aren't exactly the same as they are for the Gen 3, and they changed over time with seasonal offerings — something that's likely for the new models too. So the takeaway is that there's about the same range of design choice, though the specific options are different based on which generation of smart glasses you choose.

Battery life and specs

You don't want your smart specs dying during the day, and Meta says the Ray-Ban Gen 2 are capable of lasting 8 hours between battery charges. Assuming you take a fully charged case out with you as well, you're getting an extra 48 hours (or six full recharge cycles) on top of that before you need to find a power socket.

With the Ray-Ban Gen 3, Meta is promising up to 9 hours of battery life on a single charge, with an extra 50 hours supplied by the charging case. There's also mention of charging the glasses from zero to 50% in a mere two minutes, which is the same claim made with the previous Gen 2 models.

When it comes to the camera, it's all the same: both the Gen 3 and the Gen 2 have a 12MP ultrawide camera capable of shooting up to 3K resolution video (just be respectful of other people's privacy). There is a boost for voice input though, because the Gen 3 has a 6-mic array compared to the 5-mic array of the Gen 2.

The loudness and bass of the speakers is listed as the same between generations — 76.1 dB(C) — so there's no difference there, while the 32GB of internal storage matches as well. The headline upgrades as far as key details go are better battery life and improved mic inputs, though we're basing that on spec sheets rather than any testing.

Features and AI

In terms of what you can actually do with the Gen 3 smart glasses, everything is more or less the same as before. The only exception is an extra 'action' button you get on the new models, alongside the existing photo/video capture button, which can be customized to launch a specific feature: the AI assistant, sending a text to a favorite contact, or activating the on-board translation, for example.

Besides that, you get access to the same Meta AI on your glasses, and it's the same companion Meta AI app running on your phone too. All the core functions are the same, including audio calls, video calls (where the caller sees what you're seeing), live assistance through the AI about anything you're looking at, and audio playback for your music, podcasts, and audiobooks.

The upgrade isn't quite as dramatic as it was from Gen 1 to Gen 2 — you might remember there were significant improvements to video capture quality, and big leaps in battery life too — so if you already own a pair of Meta Ray-Ban Gen 2 smart glasses then you don't really need to upgrade immediately, unless you're a big fan of the new designs.

If you're still on the Gen 1 models or you're looking at smart glasses for the first time, however, the Meta Ray-Ban Gen 3 are a much more compelling proposition. After the latest round of Meta announcements, you've also now got the choice of the Meta VR Glasses and the camera-free Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses as well.

• Microsoft had blocked posts that used the term 'Microslop' on its Copilot Discord channel
• This was a "temporary anti-spam measure," apparently
• The policy is no longer in place, but if Microsoft thinks the word will die off, that seems highly unlikely

Microsoft is apparently letting go over the 'Microslop' affair and is no longer policing its Discord channel to block the term.

You may recall that at the start of this year, the Microslop nickname came about after a comment from Microsoft's CEO – relating to 'AI slop' – and the company cracked down on the word by blocking posts that used it on the Copilot Discord channel.

Windows Latest noticed that this is no longer the case, and the term is now being openly used in the general chat channel. Searching for 'Microslop' produces over 200 results in posts that go back weeks.

In short, Microsoft has moderated its moderation, come to its senses, and realized that cracking down and censoring in this manner is only going to inflame passions against AI, if it achieves anything.

I should make it clear that Microsoft has never said anything official on this matter, in terms of admitting any ban in the first place, let alone the lifting of it. Windows Latest reports that it did hear from Microsoft back at the time, though, and was told that the filtering was a "temporary anti-spam measure" rather than a permanent policy. It seems this is indeed the case.

Analysis: Streisand effect

The writer of the Windows Latest article further observes that they've noticed that on Reddit, X, and Windows forums, there are fewer mentions of the Microslop term these days. It happens "much less often" we're told.

I'm not so sure about that. I still see Microslop mentioned with some regularity, although I concede that the popularity of the term has diminished. This is a subjective matter, of course, and it may reflect that I visit more negative posts about Windows 11 than the Windows Latest writer has done in the past few months – who can say?

The writer acknowledges that the "criticism is still very much there" in terms of 'AI slop' in Windows 11, but that it has died down since Microsoft started fixing the OS, and made some moves to minimize the presence of AI in certain areas.

I think what Microsoft has done so far is more about not mentioning or actively pushing AI, rather than stripping it out of Windows 11, although it's true some work has been done on the latter front. It doesn't amount to a whole lot, though, in the grand scheme of things.

There has been a change of attitude, yes, but that was absolutely necessary considering the whole 'fix Windows 11 campaign' was embarked upon after Microsoft was blasted for focusing on adding AI trimmings to the system rather than getting the fundamentals right with the OS.

I still see a lot of chorusing of 'Microslop' particularly when a Windows 11 bug emerges. Commenters are very quick to jump on Microsoft and fire criticisms along the lines of 'this is what you get when AI does your coding', and the term Microslop is inevitably included in these kinds of threads. (Microsoft has admitted that it uses AI for coding to a substantial extent, and Windows 11 users won't let the firm forget that in a hurry).

I personally don't think the term Microslop is going anywhere, and it'll be hanging around Microsoft's neck for the rest of the company's existence in all likelihood. While it's obviously a positive step that any 'temporary' censorship has been rescinded, it's a bit late now. Any attempt to curtail negative talk about AI was always only going to further highlight grievances, cause more bad feeling, and yet more damaging chatter.

As one Redditor put it: "How many times do companies need to learn about the Streisand effect?"

• A bug in Windows 11's September update broke File History
• Microsoft admitted the backup feature was scuppered and has apparently now fixed it
• However, the cure is in an optional update, so it might be best to wait for the full release of the upgrade next month

Microsoft has admitted that Windows 11 has a bug that messes up a backup feature in the OS, although a new optional update fixes it (but not quite fully).

Windows Latest reports what's been a slightly odd tale in that the bug in File History has been kicking about since the September update first emerged over two weeks ago, but Microsoft didn't acknowledge it — even though it was a widely reported issue.

File History is a feature that enables you to keep files backed up to an external drive, and while it doesn't see a whole lot of use these days, it's obviously important for those who do still avail themselves of the functionality.

Microsoft informed Windows Latest that: "After installing the September 2026 Windows security update KB5124008, some customers using File History, might be unable to create or update backups. File History is used to back up files to an external drive or network location."

The good news here is that the latest September update, which is optional — it's a preview of the October update in fact — does fix this bug, as confirmed by Windows Latest, but it seemingly doesn't fully iron out every issue with File History.

Windows Latest noticed a post on Microsoft's Learn portal from a user who confirms that the new September preview update does mean that File History is working again and making backups, but there still appears to be an issue with the 'Run now' ability and problems with synchronization of save times therein.

However, this isn't a bug caused by Microsoft's recent work on Windows 11, and in fact this glitch dates back to a Windows 11 update in July 2026.

Analysis: update skeptics

At least File History appears to be cured of this latest feature-breaking bug, and hopefully the other problem highlighted on Reddit will be fixed before too long.

You don't necessarily want to download an optional update, of course, as it may bring in other bugs — after all, it's still a beta. The safest bet is to wait for the October update to arrive in two and a half weeks (on October 13) and then install that as the remedy for your File History blues (while temporarily keeping backups a different way, manually or on OneDrive, in the meantime).

Windows 11 bugs have remained a problem throughout 2026, and every year before for that matter (particularly with the 24H2 release). Microsoft still needs to do better in this regard considering this is one of the thornier issues that has continually dogged its OS, which it's busy fixing this year.

The trouble with the long-running overly buggy nature of Windows 11 is that it's making some users hold off updating the OS, and I don't mean for just a week or two. (I'd advise a week's breathing room in general myself, just to see if there are any major bugs or nasty showstoppers with any given update).

For example, this Redditor notes: "I am once again advising everyone to disable Windows updates. Let people test the bugs for a few months, then update. Your PC isn't gonna implode because you are 3 months behind on Windows 11 versions."

This was in reply to a comment which simply asked: "Is there a Windows 11 core feature that hasn't been broken at least twice since release?"

Cynicism prevails around Windows 11 updates in many corners of the web these days, and I think this is something Microsoft needs to act on. Yes, Windows is a very complex operating system that needs to cope with umpteen PC and device configurations, and a labyrinth of legacy features that must be maintained for a niche set of customers, but still — that's ultimately not an excuse.

Something needs to be done to improve QA and testing, otherwise it's going to be difficult to declare that 'Windows 11 is fixed' next year, which is Microsoft's goal (presumably).

I don’t know about you, but with every other ad being for some sports betting or prediction market platform, and every other app store game looking to cram in some kind of gacha system, I’m plenty sick enough of the 'gamblification' creeping into our daily lives.

At the same time, I kinda love Meta’s new blind box Meta Glasses with BlackPink and White Lotus star Lisa.

Call me a hypocrite, but the design collaboration is frankly genius, and while it isn’t for me (nor something I want to be bombarded with), as a one-off experiment, it feels set to be a runaway success.

To catch you up to speed, alongside its new Meta VR Glasses, Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3 smart specs, and its first-ever cameraless glasses in the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses, we were also treated to a new Meta Glasses style at Meta Connect 2026.

The Meta Glasses are Meta’s own-brand smart specs. It still works with EssilorLuxottica experts on the designs, but they aren’t branded as such — making them more accessible as they don’t carry the same price premium a named brand would.

It’s also where Meta has debuted collab designs with celebrities. It kicked things off with Kylie Jenner with the Meta Starfire Kylie Edition shape — they’re much more rounded than anything Meta has released before, though the name always makes me think of the Australian pop singer — and has now announced a partnership with Lisa.

The specs of the Meta Glasses haven’t changed here. They still boast a 12MP ultra-wide camera with a 3K recording resolution, a battery life Meta rates at over eight hours, plus open-ear speakers for listening to music and six microphones for recording audio and taking calls.

Lisa’s glasses differ entirely due to their design. They come with black and pink lens and frame options (clearly inspired by Lisa’s world-famous K-pop group), and Lisa’s star icon on each stem tip.

Importantly, each pair also comes with a random charm — one of 12, two of which are extra rare — of cute dogs cast in different poses and colors. They’re inspired by Lisa’s well-documented love of her pets and blind boxes — herein lies why I love Meta’s approach to add a random element to its specs.

Collaborative designs that incorporate some aspect of the celebrity’s persona are always appreciated by the fans, and Lisa has expressed so much love for random blind boxes that their inclusion here feels like a slam dunk.

Plus, while some charms are a bit more special than others, I personally love all 12, and they’re such a small aspect (and similar enough) that I don’t see anyone being truly devastated whichever one they get — nor needing to seek out all 12 by buying up as many Meta Glasses as possible.

Of course, I expect some new TikTok series will launch where an influencer with money to burn does attempt to open all 12, but outside of a few obsessed edge cases, I see this as a delightful expression of Lisa

If you want to get in on the Meta Glasses Lisa edition randomness, the new specs start at $339 (UK and Australian pricing TBC).

You will almost certainly have heard many business and technology leaders extolling the virtue of AI. They will enthusiastically tell you that the technology will have a transformative impact on businesses across the globe.

I think they are right. However, with two important caveats: AI must be given the right jobs, and the people using it must trust what it does.

Too often, AI is deployed across a business without much thought, as overconfident bosses assign agents tasks it isn't designed for. The problem this creates is that many employees using AI tools every day are not yet prepared for their new role in managing these agents. Trust only comes from experience and that builds over time.

When an AI system provides you with results that make sense and actually helps with your work, people start to feel more confident in using it. But if it makes a mistake, that confidence can be lost in an instant. If things go wrong, employees start finding ways around AI or stop using it altogether, and when leaders ignore employee concerns about making AI work better, its benefits are undermined.

The best way to ensure that AI delivers the efficiencies it promises is to ensure that it is doing the right job, and this isn't as straightforward as it sounds.

The areas where AI excels

AI works on probabilities, producing answers that are likely to be right. The key word here is ‘likely', which is why it occasionally hallucinates.

Being probabilistic makes AI very effective when dealing with unclear or complicated information. But it's not the best fit for tasks where a wrong answer could have serious consequences.

There are three core areas where AI really can make a difference. Firstly, when processing documents; secondly, decision support; and finally, personalization.

AI is especially effective at tasks involving many documents. It can extract, classify and summarize information that would normally take humans many hours to review. For example, an AI system could compare contracts against a standard set of clauses, or organize a large collection of customer emails by the issues they concern. This way, a person only has to look at the important findings instead of reviewing entire documents.

AI can also play a key role in supporting company executives to make decisions, as it's very good at taking lots of different pieces of information, finding patterns and delivering options as to what to do next.

It is, however, important to remember that AI is not always the right technology to make that decision. For example, imagine you're buying something and have to choose among many different suppliers.

AI can look at all the information, like how well they've done in the past, what they can deliver, how quickly it is likely to arrive and whether the supplier offers discounts for repeat purchases. It can even articulate why one option might be better than another. In most scenarios, though, it is the human who makes the final choice.

For some businesses, personalization is a promising tool, as AI can be used to make products more relevant to the individual using them. This is an area where working with probabilities can become a key driver for AI. The content only has to be good enough to make that connection so the recipient feels they are being addressed in a bespoke way.

The cost of assigning AI the wrong job

One of the key concerns companies should have about managing AI is that while AI-generated answers can sound assured, there is still a possibility that the technology has got something wrong. If that answer is allowed to trigger action without validation, a small error can travel rapidly through a workflow.

Think about what happens when someone makes a small mistake with a rule or detail in a contract. By the time someone catches the error, it may have already been added to records, sent to people outside the company, or even used to create new software.

To remind myself of AI’s limitations, I find it useful to think of the technology as the equivalent of a super-intelligent, hard-working intern. Interns need guidance and oversight, which should be provided by experienced, knowledgeable colleagues. Crucially, their access to sensitive information needs to be limited and granted only as they demonstrate they can make sound decisions.

AI needs to be managed in the same way. It should only be given greater levels of control when it has proved itself, and then its work must still be monitored by humans.

A good example of the importance of managing AI is its role in software development. AI can deliver a lot of code quickly, but its fast pace means the quality isn't always the same as that of human developers.

In fact, managing large amounts of AI-generated code can be a real headache for IT professionals. For example, surging token consumption and a shift to consumption-based pricing is ballooning AI coding costs, forcing developers to be selective on when and where they apply AI models, as reported by Gartner.

Let AI help design the model, not control the machinery

The most important design decision is where AI is allowed to reason. The riskiest place is deep in the implementation layer, where a small mistake can cause big problems that are hard to fix.

I believe a sound approach is to use AI to work with business ideas and rules. This way, it's easier for people to check and understand what the AI is suggesting.

Domain-specific languages and other abstractions used in model-driven development can provide that separation. AI helps create or refine a high-level application model, while a developer then validates the model before a deterministic platform transforms it into executable software.

AI can suggest how something should be done, but it doesn't have to be responsible for executing every step.

Abstraction helps developers, and in agent-driven systems it becomes a control tool. It simplifies complex systems and prevents small errors from becoming big problems, making AI output easier to test and fix.

Human expertise is becoming more valuable, not less

As AI becomes more prevalent, developers' roles will evolve. They will still write code, but a larger part of their role will be overseeing systems, checking outputs and catching mistakes, a change that brings with it the opportunity to learn new skills.

Developers will increasingly work at the level of systems and architecture, understanding the business rationale, recognizing patterns and judging whether AI-generated code fits the wider application and holds together.

One company that has innovated in this area and is already reaping the rewards for their experience is Ford. They recently hired 350 experienced engineers to help train younger colleagues and improve their AI and automation tools.

The shift was driven by the fact that the AI tools weren't producing the results they wanted without the expertise brought by seasoned professionals. Now, these experienced engineers act as internal auditors, reviewing designs and finding potential problems before they become major issues on the factory floor.

When you combine AI's ability to recognize patterns and process information with human knowledge and experience, it becomes a much more powerful tool. This combination is what makes it truly effective, not just relying on one or the other.

Building trust

Enterprises should also resist the pressure to deploy agents everywhere simply because competitors appear to be doing so. When it comes to using AI, leaders need to think carefully about each situation.

They should ask themselves three important questions. First, are they asking AI to only suggest what to do or to actually do it? Next, can someone check and fix what the AI says before an error spreads? Finally, what would happen if the system is certain about something but is actually wrong?

The answers play a big role in deciding how much freedom to give the technology. For example, a tool that summarizes documents might only need a quick check, but a system that suggests business decisions needs someone's logged approval.

When companies start using AI for specific, practical tasks, it shows employees that it can really make a difference in their work. This approach gives the company a chance to get its data, rules and processes in order. If people can see that the system is working well, and they understand what it can and can't do, they start to trust it more. Over time, this trust grows.

The key is to create a work setup where humans and machines do what they're good at. AI is great at processing large volumes of information and surfacing patterns. People are good at understanding the bigger picture, pointing out mistakes, and taking responsibility for their actions.

The wrong job to give to AI is any task where a mistake carries real consequences, no one checks the work before it causes harm, or the system sounds certain while being wrong. Companies that respect this division will build the confidence to give agentic AI greater autonomy over time. Those who ignore it may discover that a single poorly chosen task can undermine their entire AI strategy.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Update: This article previously stated the hearing enhancement feature was $149.99 a month, rather than $149.99 as a one-time payment. This has been ammended and the original story continues below.

All eyes were on Meta Connect 2026. The annual hardware showcase is where the company debuts its latest wearables, and this year’s event comes at a time when anti-smart glasses sentiment seems to be at an all-time high — though that didn’t stop Meta showcasing several brand new pairs of specs.

Smart glasses are getting banned from offices, event spaces, pubs, and courtrooms (among other venues), and folks are expressing their uneasiness at being under the gaze of camera-equipped specs — especially given the potential for wearers to film those around them covertly.

Perhaps that’s why Meta has debuted, for the first time, smart glasses that entirely lack cameras, in the shape of the Ray-Ban Meta Audio — though in the pre-Connect briefing I had for the glasses (I’m writing this ahead of the showcase, so can’t speak for what Mark Zuckerberg will say in his version of the keynote) Meta didn’t attempt to link its Audio glasses with the privacy backlash.

Instead, Meta focused on the advantages of these glasses — chiefly their longer 12-hour battery life. We’ll need to see how this figure holds up in our day-to-day testing, though it sounds like these glasses will be able to provide AI assistance and music playback for much longer stretches of your day than previous models.

You’ll be able to enjoy wearing them for longer too. The specs now weigh just 43g (down from 49g for the lightest Gen 2 design), and they also boast some of the Ray-Ban Meta Optics’ (Meta's prescription glasses line) fit adjustments, like ergonomic hinges and adjustable temple tips. Based on my time wearing the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses, these features help to make them some of Meta’s comfiest yet — though my demo was only for about 20 minutes or so which isn’t the same as all-day wear.

Audio performance is also getting a boost thanks to Dolby Atmos support. The glasses' microphones are much better at picking up an immersive soundscape, and the speakers are better at playing it back to you.

I heard a few examples in my demo where the video swapped between Atmos and standard Stereo playback, and the difference was night and day. With Atmos I felt so much more immersed.

If you’ve wanted to pick up a pair of smart glasses, but don’t want ones with a camera, these could be the specs for you when they launch on October 13, priced at $349 / £319 / AU$529.

Problem solved?

Of course, Meta hasn’t abandoned its camera glasses — it just announced its Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3 model — and in my briefing Meta pushed back on claims its specs can be used covertly.

It described the recording indicator as being “a light you can’t miss,” and noted how it has improved its glasses’ tamper-protection features in recent updates. It didn’t provide details on if or how it will make the indicator more obvious (many I’ve spoken to would disagree with Meta’s “can’t miss” claim), though given the existential threat to its business the ‘perv glasses’ moniker poses, I expect more protections and safeguards are on the horizon (assuming they aren’t announced at Connect).

Audio-only glasses present a partial solution to the issue. They can still capture audio of yourself and those around you, and aren’t as useful as camera-equipped glasses — you can’t provide visual context to the Muse AI, for example — but the lack of snappers also means they’re a lot less invasive.

And despite being more limited, the glasses can still offer some useful support. Meta has announced a new Hearing Enhancement feature for its specs. The feature is designed to help people with mild or moderate hearing loss enhance the audio of the world around them. It's not free, however, as it'll cost $149.99 as a one time purchase (pricing outside the US TBC), or it'll come as part of a Meta One subscription.

Possible added costs aside, this feature is an incredible tool — and a showcase for the good things new tech like smart glasses can provide — and some of the Meta employees at the event told me it's the best thing they've worked on while at the company.

Besides the new Meta VR Glasses, the Ray-Ban Meta Audio are probably the glasses I’m most excited to experience, although camera-less specs aren’t my favorite, as they often lack audio capabilities and use a display — Meta’s specs are the opposite, with no display and Dolby Atmos audio, and that’s much more my style.

I want a casual audio experience with the occasional AI assistance, not a constant HUD that feels mildly useful at best, and annoyingly distracting at worst. I’ll be interested to see what others think, though.

Will this camera-less design face less backlash, will it be widely accepted? Or has the negativity around smart specs gone too far for brands to be able to win people back?

I think there’s still time for smart glasses to be saved, though ignoring the cameras problem is only a half step. Better privacy protections are still needed, but we’ll have to wait and see who acts next — will Meta and others properly regulate themselves, will the court of public opinion continue to rule against 'perv glasses', or will government regulators take the decision out of everyone else’s hands?

Meta Connect just ended, and the biggest announcement of the night for me was easily the debut of Meta’s VR Glasses — even if they were leaked ahead of schedule by Meta’s own prescription tutorial.

Ahead of their official reveal, I got to spend 30 minutes with the new tech, experiencing a wide range of demos that might have convinced me this isn’t merely Meta’s best VR headset yet — it could be the best VR headset I’ve used yet.

The only downside is we’ll be waiting a little longer to wear it. The headset isn’t due to launch until “Spring 2027” (March, April or May), but at least we know it’ll cost just $1,299 when it does land (price elsewhere TBC).

Slimmer than ever

Let’s start with the design.

Slimmer and lighter than anything that has come before (the actual headset part you wear is down to just around 100g); this headset looks like a pair of glasses. They even swap the headstrap for glasses stems to stay on your head.

The bulk of the weight is instead housed in a puck you carry in your pocket — a lot like the puck used by the Apple Vision Pro or Samsung Galaxy XR. The big difference here is Meta’s isn’t just a battery pack, it also houses all of the headset’s compute. It’s tethered to the headset via an optical cable, but this wire never got in the way while I used the headset — whether I was up and moving, playing a game like Beat Saber Flux, or sitting being productive with multitasking across multiple windows.

The headset can support controllers; however, it doesn’t come with any in the box. Instead, you’ll need to rely on hand controls: either reaching out and grabbing, or the look and pinch controls popularized by Apple’s Vision Pro and Samsung’s Galaxy XR.

Lastly, I should note that, despite being called glasses, this is a headset. They have an opaque front cover that only appears to be see-through to the wearer because of passthrough. This live video feed of the real world isn’t yet perfect (it’s still a little grainy and there’s a slight delay), though it seems at least as good as the competition based on my experience so far.

They do support pescription inserts too. They connect magnetically to the display lenses and don't disrupt the slimness of the headset at all based on my experience.

The device is just so supremely comfortable to wear. My demo was only around 30 minutes, but at one-fifth the weight of a Meta Quest 3 or Samsung Galaxy XR, the difference is immediately noticeable — this is a headset I don’t see myself needing to take off, even after multiple days of working with it on.

Plus, it’s so portable you can easily take this everywhere in whatever bag you have on hand. No dedicated carry case required. I can’t wait to travel with this thing.

An all-round powerhouse

While this can be used for all existing Meta Quest 3-compatible apps (though you will need controllers for those that don’t support hand tracking, either as a new paid add-on or by commandeering your Quest’s handsets), where this headset truly shines is static experiences: productivity and entertainment.

We know VR headsets are excellent for multitasking. You can arrange virtual project app windows around you, and even bring your PC screen into XR to create the perfect setup. Meta’s headset boasts two useful additional features.

First, you aren’t limited to the number of displays your physical setup has when you connect it to your headset. Each laptop or PC can be extended to up to three virtual monitors, a tool that some previous iterations of virtual desktop apps haven’t been able to offer (You could open multiple VR app windows, but only as many connected device windows as you had physical monitors).

Secondly, Meta’s headset can turn any surface into a keyboard. It just scans the surface in front of you — be it a cafe table, a seat tray on a plane, or a bench at the park — and then virtually projects a keyboard and trackpad you can type and swipe on. It works seamlessly. In my demo, I was able to type as swiftly and accurately as I could on a physical accessory, and in terms of portability, this is yet another win for Meta’s VR Glasses.

Moving on to entertainment, it seems Disney Plus’ Apple exclusivity has ended as the app and its library of 3D films are hitting Meta’s new headset. Because it’s an app, you can download content to watch on the go, which includes brand new immersive watching experiences.

While it was still just a demo, I got to experience watching a clip of Avengers: Endgame that extended beyond the screen in a souped-up version of Philips Ambilight.

It’s the scene where Thor is forging his new axe, I was sitting in that same forge. The room lit up and reacted as events unfolded in the film, ending with lightning flying out of the screen as Stormbreaker helped Thor return to full strength. It was a bit gimmicky, but also fun — not something I’d want for every movie, but an experience I’d want when returning to a big tentpole.

All of this content, be it immersive movies, a VR game, or a work document, looks beautiful on the 5K micro-OLED screen. It boasts a 37 pixel-per-degree resolution, which is around the PPD that its rivals, the Apple Vision Pro and Samsung Galaxy XR, boast (Samsung and Apple haven’t revealed these figures, but they have been estimated during product teardowns).

This is significantly better than the Quest 3’s mere 25PPD, and it meets the standard of being able to deliver the IMAX Enhanced Format — with superb audio and visuals. I got a taste of this in my demo, and I’m keen to experience more.

I need this yesterday

I’m about to jet set to LA for a press trip, and I so desperately wish I could be taking the Meta VR Glasses with me for the flight — both for getting work done and for immersing myself in a movie on a big screen rather than the back of the chair in front of me.

Alas, the VR specs aren’t due to land until 2027, though we know how much they’ll cost: $1,299. Much less than a Vision Pro, or a Galaxy XR, and cheaper than the highest price Xreal has said its Aura glasses — the closest thing I’ve tried to the Meta VR Glasses — could be.

At the time of writing, Meta hasn’t revealed too much in the way of specs (I’m writing this up based on a pre-Connect briefing). The Meta VR Glasses can run any Quest 3 app and can multitask across six windows at once, so it must be at least somewhat capable. I expect it boasts at least 12GB of RAM and the latest Snapdragon XR chipset.

I’m just impressed Meta can commit to such a relatively low price, especially months in advance. There are so many unknowns over trade and RAM demand that we’ve seen companies not reveal prices until as close to the last second as possible. Meta has bucked a trend here, but I expect it would only do so if 100% confident the cost won’t budge — if it doesn’t, I’ll be very, very happy.

Even as public opinion turns against camera-equipped smart glasses, Meta is pushing forward with its generally well-received and quite popular Ray-Ban Meta line. Alongside the much-anticipated Meta Ray-Ban Audio glasses, which skip cameras entirely and come in two styles, Clubmaster and Burbank, there's also the next generation of the Ray-Ban Meta glasses.

Like the previous generation, the Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 3) still features onboard cameras with the all-important glowing LED ring that alerts you when a photo is being taken or a video is being recorded. It's an important safeguard, and Meta has added more protections against folks who try to disable or conceal it, but concerns remain.

Meta's pushing forward with the Gen 3, even if the audio-only models prove more popular. They're launching today in three styles: Ray-Ban Meta Aviator, Ray-Ban Meta Zena, and a new version of the Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer. Pricing starts at $449 in the United States; we're working to confirm UK and Australia pricing.

The story across the board is better hardware, all tucked into smart glasses that more closely resemble real glasses, with lighter and thinner builds where possible. The Aviators are particularly exciting to see adopted for the AI and smart era. The frames are thicker than the classic wire ones, but they still frame the face well. Zena is decidedly modern and sleek as a cat's eye, while Wayfarer is still the iconic, cool frame that Ray-Ban introduced years ago.

I'm testing the Ray-Ban Meta Aviator in a brown shade, and you can see my unboxing video embedded below. I like this color, especially compared with my speckled brown Gen 1 Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarers.

There are 27 total combinations when you account for colors and lens types, and if you're willing to pay for it, you can fit these with transition lenses and even prescription lenses.

Regardless of frame style or lens type, you benefit from improved tech onboard. For starters, the cameras — if you choose to use them, and as mentioned, the ring will glow when you do — can take 12-megapixel photos and record 3K Ultra HD video, with Dolby Atmos support for a more cinematic audio experience during playback. There's also a Dynamic Photo mode, similar to Live Photos on iOS, which snaps a few shots so you can pick the best one.

Battery life is also improved. It isn't quite at the 12 hours of the new Meta Ray-Ban Audio models, but the Gen 3s last up to nine hours on a full charge. That's an hour longer than the Gen 2s, and the included charging case lets you recharge on the go.

Finally, just like the Meta Glasses — including the Kylie edition — that launched earlier in 2026, the Gen 3s get more microphones. Six of them improve voice pickup, whether you're drafting a message, asking Meta AI a question, or on a call. Meta promises they cut over 90% of background noise, and we look forward to putting that to the test.

While it's not a night-and-day difference over the second generation, the Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 3) shows that Meta has settled on the core feature set it wants for its AI glasses. Now, in a move likely to broaden their appeal, it's focusing on offering more styles, and its partnership with Ray-Ban is clearly still evolving. The Gen 3s continue the quest for smart glasses that feel closer to the regular versions of these frames, while adding the latest tech for a compelling experience.

Just how compelling will be weighed against the added privacy concerns, but let's hope Meta keeps adding more privacy features and keeps cracking down on those who try to block out the LEDs.

We'll be back soon with our full thoughts — and if you ask us, the Aviators look pretty, pretty nice — but if you're already sold, the Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 3) are up for order right now, starting at $449 in the US, from Meta, Ray-Ban, and other authorized sellers.

Meta Connect 2026 is busy. Alongside the next-generation Meta Glasses, a camera-free version of the Ray-Ban Meta Glasses, and a new collaboration with Korean pop star Lisa, Meta is adding a significant new capability to its glasses: hearing enhancement.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared the feature, which turns a pair of Meta Glasses into a hearing aid for people with mild to moderate hearing loss. It amplifies sound based on your hearing profile and uses machine learning to boost voices and suppress background noise.

Meta isn't the first here, though. Apple's AirPods Pro 2 are already cleared as over-the-counter hearing aids and Nuance offers a pair of smart shades with a similar function. Meta, though, is betting on its form factor: glasses sit outside the ear, and many people already wear them all day.

It's not free, though. The feature launches with a free 30-day trial, after which it costs a one-time payment of $149.99, or comes as part of a Meta One subscription. In the US, it's also FSA/HSA eligible, with Meta saying it will share more details closer to the launch, which in the US is set for later in 2026. Even including the price of compatible glasses, Meta says it's significantly cheaper than traditional hearing aids.

The feature is launching in the US first, with Meta planning to expand to other countries as it works through each region's medical device regulations.

I spoke with Ravish Mehra, Director of Research Science at Meta, about why Meta thinks glasses are the right home for hearing enhancement. Mehra, who has spent nearly 12 years at the company, says the work started more than five years ago.

"We have a very unique audio platform that has microphone arrays, that has glasses, is socially acceptable in terms of people wearing glasses, and we have onboard compute," he says.

According to Mehra, one in six Americans have mild to moderate hearing loss, yet only around 15% of them do anything about it. He notes that hearing aids are expensive, uncomfortable to wear all day, and signal to others that you have a hearing impairment. So people "put the issue under the rug," Mehra says, telling themselves, "Okay, it's just people are mumbling, and that's why I'm not able to hear."

Glasses sidestep the stigma in his view: "Nobody else can tell just by looking at your glasses that you have hearing impairment.”

A hearing test at home

"Every person's hearing loss is slightly different," Mehra says. Instead of a clinic visit and multiple fittings, Meta's hearing test takes around one to two minutes with your phone, through the Meta AI app, and your glasses. You listen to sounds at different frequencies, indicate when you can barely hear them, and the system builds a hearing profile showing where you need amplification.

"You don't have to go anywhere to get these glasses fit for your hearing profile," Mehra says. "You just do a very simple test at home, and whenever your hearing needs change, you just redo the test."

That test was central to the FDA clearance. Meta tested the feature with a group of people with mild to moderate hearing loss, and its results showed the phone-based test was equivalent in performance to a professional fitting, within an acceptable margin.

"We are actually the first self-fitting hearing aid on glasses in the market," Mehra says.

How it works

The glasses' six microphones capture sound around you — currently being used on Meta Glasses — which is then amplified where your profile shows a deficit. That also amplifies noise, so a machine learning model trained to recognize voices brings the background down. It all runs on-device, and speed is critical. "All of this has to happen in a very short latency, because otherwise you start hearing echoes or start hearing distortions," Mehra says.

There are two modes: 360 mode amplifies sound all around you, while Focus mode suits environments like a restaurant, where you want to hear the person across the table.

"We actually use the microphones to first do beamforming, which is like focusing in the forward direction more," Mehra explains. "And then […] we train the system to enhance the voices while not enhancing or suppressing the noise."

The frame helps, too. "Because the glasses have a much wider baseline, you can put the microphones much farther away," says Mehra. This makes it easier to isolate speech from noise than with microphones placed millimeters apart in the ear.

I got a brief demo: Meta had us put in earplugs to simulate hearing loss, then wear the glasses. They did properly amplify the people directly around me, and even those a bit farther away. Focus mode noticeably singles out the person in front of you, but it wasn't perfect, and of course earplugs are no substitute for real hearing loss.

The feedback problem

Amplifying sound isn't the hardest part, though. "One of the issues that any kind of real-time amplification feature faces is called feedback," Mehra says. "When you amplify something through the speakers, they feed back into the microphones."

On glasses, with their open-ear design, nothing separates the speakers from the microphones. Meta's system has to detect feedback before it builds, suppress it, and still deliver enough amplification. "If you're not able to cancel that feedback, then you hear these very sharp noises," Mehra says.

Then there's processing, which is added on top of a broader feature set the glasses offer, so Meta had to squeeze the feature into what Mehra calls "a very small envelope" of onboard compute power.

Meta hasn't confirmed which glasses will support it, only that they must meet a minimum performance bar, or confirmed a rollout schedule other than late 2026. Given the processing involved, I'd be surprised to see it on older models like the first-gen Ray-Ban Meta glasses; all of the demos at Meta Connect have been on the more recently released Meta Glasses.

Meta isn't just trying to make its glasses hear for you; it's trying to help you hear, too. It's a new category for the company, but Mehra is in no doubt about the bet, telling me: "We strongly feel like glasses is the ideal form factor."

• Meta's glasses can no longer record if the capture LED is covered at any time, says independent test
• But the light is too hard to see if you're not very close, says German data protection agency
• EU bodies recommend actively getting full consent from anyone recorded, not assuming it

Detailed testing confirms that the Meta Glasses firmware update, designed to stop a potential privacy problem with surreptitious recording, does what it's supposed to do — but Germany's privacy enforcement agent says it's not enough, because the light itself is insufficiently visible.

The update was designed to address a simple exploit that bypassed the "no recording when the recording light is covered" feature.

In theory, that feature meant that it was impossible to secretly record someone or something by hiding the camera capture LED. The glasses could detect if the light is covered, and wouldn't record if that was the case.

In reality, it was immediately defeated by the kind of people who've helped earn the 'pervert glasses' label for the smart glasses: they discovered that the glasses only checked the light at the very beginning of recording, so you could simply start capturing, cover up the light and keep recording with the light now hidden.

The new update prevents them from doing that by re-checking the light every few seconds — but privacy watchdogs say it doesn't make much difference: even uncovered, the capture light on current models isn't good enough when it comes to privacy, consent or potential illegality.

Why a little LED isn't enough to protect other people's privacy

In a detailed report by the Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, which involved a tear-down of the Ray-Ban Meta glasses and a detailed privacy analysis (via Notebookcheck.net), the Commissioner found that the LED light "is not easily visible in many environments, particularly outdoors and in direct sunlight". Meaning that even if you're using them as intended, that doesn't mean people can necessarily see (or recognize) the recording light

It's not just the lack of brightness. The beam angle is very narrow too, the report says, and that means you need to be pretty close and looking almost directly at the wearer to be able to see if the light is on.

The report also notes that the second-gen glasses behave differently to the first generation when the wearer asks about something or someone nearby. With the first generation, the LED "glows, very dimly". But in the second generation it doesn't glow at all.

The report argues that in most cases, if you're not recording friends or family only, then you can't assume informed consent. It recommends additional steps such as text notifications or signage, or actively speaking to the people you intend to film.

That ties in with a recent report by the French e-Enfance association, which reported this month that simply assuming someone saw the capture light does not necessarily mean they've consented to the storage, processing and distribution of their image.

A person needs to not only to have seen the light, but they must also understand what it indicates and be able to withhold their consent. And if minors are being filmed, e-Enfance says parents must provide permission.

It's wise to pay attention if you'll be filming in the country: French privacy laws are notably strict, with prison sentences and five-figure fines for deliberately invading someone's private life.

It's worth noting that these reports are based on European law, whereas US law is much more lenient: the US doesn't have the data protection and privacy protections members (and former members, such as the UK) of the European Union have, and its lawmakers are much more tech-friendly.

But no matter where you live, if you're a smart glasses wearer and could be recording others who aren't part of your close circle, it may be wise to ensure you can demonstrate that the people you're filming knew you were doing it, were able to opt out, and provided their consent.

There's a growing backlash against the use of smart glasses by various bad actors, and simply assuming consent, or even assuming that people are aware of what your glasses are doing just because they have a light, may not be enough to protect wearers from future legal consequences.

Thinking of buying a new TV?

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

In a Pier 57 auditorium filled with YouTubers of all ages and stripes, I felt a bit out of place. I haven't posted a full-length YouTube video to my channel in years, but listening to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, other execs, and especially YouTube creators enthuse about new AI-boosted viewer and creator tools, I felt inspired again to, if not create, get back to my regular YouTube viewing habit.

The yearly Made on YouTube event, a confab on all the latest notable YouTube platform updates from creators and video consumers, featured a cavalcade of young, energetic YouTubers like Happy Kelli (Kelli Erdmann), Gremlita (Mina Le), and Derrick Gee, each of them introducing some fairly significant updates to the video platform, which Mohan claims has supported over half a million full-time jobs and contributed $60B to the US GDP in 2025.

Most notable for those who can't get enough of the creator videos and shorts are the new AI-powered Custom Feeds. While your current YouTube homepage is probably filled with subscriptions and algorithmic recommendations for your next watch, custom feeds are built via a prompt ("I want to see videos of tuxedoed cats playing jazz on pianos") and then live in a tab at the top of your feed. According to YouTuber Mina Lee, who gave the demo, the feeds constantly update with the latest videos that fit your request. Custom Feeds is expected on desktop and mobile this Fall (before the end of this year).

Just months after Google CEO Sundar Pichai unveiled "Ask YouTube" at Google I/O, YouTube is enhancing the AI-powered chatbot with stronger conversational skills and the ability to see inside videos. As we saw in the demo, you can go on quite a conversational journey with Ask YouTube, which can dig into the video's content and return time-stamped, contextual results, even pulling information from the comments.

Naturally, this journey could continue all the way to results with product specs and even the ability to buy a product directly. For now, the video creator who first talked about the product might miss out on affiliate revenue unless someone clicks from the Ask YouTube result to the original video. YouTube execs later told us they want to ensure that the affiliate connection still works.

Putting the agentic in video editing

Even if some of the AI tools YouTube is unveiling might appear to temporarily undermine creators, the new agentic editing tools look like a game changer.

Mobile App users will soon find "Ask Studio", a conversational editing assistant that lets you use natural language for edits. In the demo Happy Kelli ran, we saw how a series of prompts, each one building on the next without restating the initial task, turned a collection of clips into a complete video. She called it an "infinitely patient helper." YouTube says the tool will help creators edit a first draft, add typography, find the right music, and even sync it to the video action. And yes, it'll help you decide on the perfect hook: the thing people first see after the Thumbnail that might drag them into your video.

AI will also help build audio consumers a new "Your Podcast" lineup, which will basically be a short audio overview of podcasts you might like. YouTube creator Derrick Gee described it as "a personalized podcast about other podcasts, chosen for you — very meta."

YouTube Music is also getting its own chatbot, naturally called "Ask Music. Gee showed us how it can dig deep into the minutiae of an artist or song. In his example, he asked about the musical influences on Troye Sivan's new single She's the Best. One of the songs turned out to be Lou Reed's Walk on the Wild Side. As with other demos, the contextual journey can continue. In this case, Gee quizzed Ask Music about the bassist on Reed's song I(Herbie Flowers). Later, Sivan, who got his start on YouTube in 2007, joined Gee on stage (he did not sing).

Other updates include:

• YouTube Shorts being turned into Shorts Series with dedicated seasons, episodes, and automatic sequential playback
• GIFs in comments
• Custom thumbnails for different audiences
• Analytics adding rich insights and the ability to A/B test entire videos with live YouTube viewers
• Auto-dubbing for Live video, which is essentially realtime translation

Google Gemini's fingerprints are all over many of these updates, and I wondered how YouTube is navigating the choppy waters of AI sentiment.

Aparna Pappu, who leads YouTube Shorts, told me they're building these new tools and capabilities based on what creators need. Video creation remains, she said, a co-creative and collaborative process where the creator is always in charge. As for AI, "One of the ways [AI] serves us well: we only succeed when creators succeed.”

Amjad Hanif, VP of Creator Products, said that there was a time when creators were apprehensive about how AI might help them. "Now," he said, "it's hard to meet anyone who isn’t using it in their workflow."

• Epic Games Launcher has been identified as the culprit behind mysterious chimes on users' PCs
• Epic has confirmed it's planning to update the launcher to reduce the frequency of its 'party chimes'
• Users have requested a feature that turns off the chimes altogether

Multiple PC users have recently noticed mysterious sounds playing at random, and it appears the Epic Games Launcher is the culprit.

As reported by TweakTown, a Fortnite news page on X discovered the Epic Games Launcher randomly playing sounds on their PC, as several audio files matching them were found in the Epic Games 'social chimes' folder.

Each sound represents actions in a game party, such as a party user leaving, push-to-talk activation or deactivation, and message notifications, which sounds bizarre as this occurs even when users aren't in Epic Games parties.

Epic has since confirmed (via a FortniteStatus X page) that the 'party chimes' were playing more frequently than necessary, and it is now updating the Epic Games Launcher to 'narrow which events play a sound while the launcher is in the background'.

These party chimes are sounds I've noticed on my Windows 11 system, playing at very random intervals, and sometimes even when the launcher isn't visibly open. The sounds aren't accompanied by pop-up notifications either, which only added to the confusion for me and many other PC users previously trying to pinpoint the source.

TweakTown states that Epic plans to introduce an option to toggle the chimes on or off in the future, but, surprisingly, a toggle option isn't a top priority as of now — especially since user replies berate Epic for not including an option to remove the sounds altogether.

For now, at least, a quick workaround is to delete the files from the directory as follows: Program Files (or Program Files x86)\Epic Games\Launcher\Portal\Extras\SocialChimes. It's worth noting that this is only a temporary fix, as Epic Games Launcher updates will likely overwrite this and place the files back into the directory.

Perhaps this entire case serves as yet another reason to use Steam for many users, where bugs are rare occurrences — but at the very least, PC users can rest knowing there isn't some unwanted or unknown application running on their system.

The abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has created uncertainty about what happens next to Britain’s AI ambitions.

Kanishka Narayan’s promotion to Minister for AI gives the technology a dedicated voice at Cabinet, yet folding DSIT’s responsibilities into other departments raises questions about how the Government will coordinate the infrastructure, investment and public-sector adoption needed to support those ambitions.

Recent parliamentary scrutiny of critical public-sector AI contracts has highlighted growing pressure on institutions to strengthen control over AI operations and deployment continuity. Britain has focused on adoption speed; the next step is operational control in ongoing public-service AI use.

The case for sovereign AI is becoming stronger as a result. Britain needs more than access to capable models; it needs controlled operations for the services that depend on them, even when a provider, contract or political relationship changes.

Sovereignty goes further than where data sits

Sovereign AI is often reduced to data residency, with the assumption that keeping information inside Britain is enough to keep it under British control. Data location remains important, particularly in healthcare, defense and public administration, but it describes only one part of the relationship between an organization and the technology it uses.

A hospital could store every patient record in a British data center while relying on models and software that only the original provider can operate or modify. Where that provider is based remains relevant, but the more useful test of sovereignty is whether the hospital can understand the system, govern how it is used and continue running it if the commercial relationship changes.

An organization should know how its systems operate, determine which data a model can access and retain the ability to move a workload or introduce another model without rebuilding the entire service. Once that system becomes essential, it also needs enough internal expertise to keep it running rather than discovering that continuity depends on the decisions of one supplier.

Britain does not need to reproduce every layer of the stack, but it does need predictable control where public services run. Modern AI draws on international research, complex supply chains and open-source projects, and recreating them domestically would consume enormous resources without necessarily producing better technology.

As DSIT’s responsibilities move across Whitehall, the Government needs to decide which dependencies it can accept without threatening security, public trust or an essential service.

Capability and control can reinforce one another

Government AI plans sometimes present sovereignty as the slower alternative to using the largest commercial models, as though Britain must choose between world-class AI and control over its deployment. That assumes every organization needs the same frontier system, when the question is which model suits the work.

For many public workloads, a fit-for-purpose model in a controlled environment is more valuable than one large generic option, especially when governance obligations are strict.

A specialized model can be adapted to the organization's data, tested under the conditions in which it will operate and governed according to the consequences of getting a decision wrong. In those circumstances, greater control can make the system more useful as well as more independent.

Open and portable technology can support this approach by allowing organizations to run models across different infrastructure, examine how systems behave and replace components as better options emerge.

Openness does not guarantee sovereignty, since organizations still need secure infrastructure, skilled teams and clear governance, but it reduces the chance that an entire service becomes inseparable from one provider’s platform.

I have seen the AI market move quickly enough to make that flexibility increasingly valuable. The best model for a task today may be overtaken within months, while pricing, regulation and access can change almost as quickly.

An organization that builds around one proprietary service may struggle to benefit from that progress, whereas one that controls the environment in which its models operate can introduce better technology without starting again.

Government can turn sovereignty into capability

Britain already has many of the ingredients it needs, including strong universities, experienced researchers, growing AI companies and public investment in compute. The next step is to connect those assets with sustained demand in the parts of the public sector where sovereignty has the greatest practical value.

Government does not need to select one national champion or exclude international companies. It can create a market in which providers compete while public bodies retain control of the systems they buy.

Procurement rules for critical AI could require workloads to be portable, independently testable and capable of running within infrastructure controlled by the customer, making the ability to change course part of the original decision rather than a problem discovered at the end of a contract.

This would give hospitals, councils and government departments credible sovereign options while providing British AI companies with a route from pilots to long-term deployment. It would encourage partnerships in which knowledge and operational authority remain with the institution responsible for the service, even when private companies provide the technology and expertise.

The restructuring of DSIT should be treated as an opportunity to clarify Britain’s objective rather than reduce its ambition. A Minister for AI can bring different parts of government together, but the strategy should be judged by whether public institutions can use the best technology available while retaining meaningful control of the systems that matter most.

That is what will allow Britain’s AI ambitions to endure as departments, suppliers and technologies change.

We've featured the best AI tool.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Microsoft is rolling out an in-app browser for the Copilot app
• When you open links provided by the AI, they'll appear side-by-side with the chat
• While this is likely to prove a convenient feature for some, others have their doubts, and there's an ulterior motive of sorts in terms of pushing Edge

The Copilot app in Windows 11 is getting its own browser, which means that when you follow links provided by the AI, you'll stay within the confines of the app.

Windows Central noticed that Microsoft is set to roll out the in-app browser for the Copilot app on Windows 11 (and macOS), where it will open links in a panel to the side of the chat.

Normally, links would be fired up separately in the default web browser, but with this change, Microsoft aims to keep more activity within the Copilot app.

This feature has been in testing since early this year, and is available for admins to enable now, with a "broader rollout" happening in late November.

If you use the Copilot app, then, you can expect to see this ability appearing in a couple of months (or maybe a bit longer depending on the pace of the rollout).

Analysis: edging forward

Obviously, there is an aspect of convenience here, as you can peruse web pages that Copilot highlights right there in the app window. Some folks might like the idea, then, but on Reddit, the feedback that's been shared has been pretty negative.

Windows Central poses a question for the story headline, namely: "Will this upcoming update make Copilot your preferred browser on Windows 11?" And the Redditors who can't resist replying to that query are all overwhelmingly negative.

One reply says: "No. Copilot is a scourge that I avoid at all opportunities. Having a browser inside Copilot sounds like Hell."

Another states: "Definitely not. As it is, if I click a link in Copilot I have it open it in my actual web browser. The built-in browser would have to be really good to get me to change that."

Okay, so it's a loaded question and one that AI skeptics are more than happy to jump on and shoot down – but these aren't the people that Microsoft is considering here. It's introducing this for folks who use the Copilot app, who, obviously enough, aren't part of the anti-AI crowd who are very quick to fire flak at anything related to the topic.

On the other hand, this isn't something Microsoft's doing purely out of the goodness of its heart. It's a way to keep more activity within the Copilot app, as noted, and also another method of (indirectly) pushing the Edge browser. Because naturally enough, that's what the in-app browser is based on (what else would it be).

That doesn't mean the feature isn't useful, though, and if you like the sound of the in-app browser for Copilot, you've not got long to wait.

• A Vladimir Putin press call showed the Russian president casting an online vote for the country’s parliamentary elections
• The short clip has revealed that not only is Putin using a US-built Dell PC, it is running Windows 10 – and the license has not been activated
• Putin’s example of voting online is intended to encourage voters to take part, but has instead raised eyebrows and launched memes

Parliamentary elections in Russia took place on Friday, September 18 2026, with online voting for positions in the State Duma open to the public for the first time. To demonstrate the ease of online voting, a press call highlighted Russian President Vladimir Putin casting his vote – but this hasn’t gone quite as planned.

While the president appeared to have difficulty reading the display, the real challenge seems to be that the Russian leader is using a version of Windows 10 that has not been activated. Furthermore, the PC is a Dell, rather than a Russian-built system.

The Putin publicity stunt has already launched memes, but the it also raises questions about his ability to use a computer, not to mention the suitability of the hardware for voting.

“You can’t go wrong”

With 73-year-old President Putin lined up for the cameras with the Dell PC set up on his desk, he goes through the motions of “voting online,” presumably to demonstrate how easy it is. (In person and mail voting options were also available.)

The press call has all the authenticity of an unlicensed copy of Windows 10. Ironically, this is exactly what is in use, as you can see toward the end of the video.

Watch to the end:

Although an initial reaction might be “Russian state IT is pretty weak,” it seems more likely that the state-controlled hardware overseeing infrastructure, networks, and military systems is far more up-to-date. What is more likely is that that PC was pulled out of a back room and an old copy of Windows quickly installed simply to provide President Putin with his short encouragement to vote.

Dell vs. Aquarius

The use of a Dell PC is curious, however. While Russia and the US have cordial relations, it seems strange for the Russian president to use a foreign PC. Sanctions aside, Russia has a policy of forcing the use of home-grown brands (such as Aquarius) over those from overseas.

After voting, the five-times elected Russian leader uttered the memorable line “you can’t go wrong,” in his native language, perhaps highlighting the futility of voting for any candidates not in his favoured party, United Russia.

While it is difficult to assess the legitimacy of the elections in Russia itself, the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom have challenged the elections in occupied Ukraine territories. The nations have described the them as “sham elections” that violate “Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, and the UN Charter.”

• Adobe Premiere on Android has officially launched
• The free video editing app adds easy 4K video editing, AI, and more
• I checked out how the app runs, what you get, and if it really does offer 'effortless editing' for creators

Adobe Premiere for Android has arrived - finally, since Apple users got this app almost exactly a year ago. The mobile editing app is promising to deliver 4K video for content creators, alongside a slew of other tools including templates and AI generation (did you ever doubt it?).

Like most of Adobe's mobile apps, Premiere is free to download from the Google Play Store, although you'll need a subscription for extra AI generations and storage.

The upshot is, I've been keen to try out this Android app for a long time now, so here's what you can expect after I spent an hour dabbling with it on my Fairphone.

What's new?

This new Adobe Premiere app is specifically designed for Android phones, including foldables. According to Adobe, you'll need a device running Android 13 or later, with a minimum of 5GB RAM.

The app serves up a host of useful tools for content creators, including 4K video, simple-to-use templates for speeding up production, multi-track timeline editing, music and audio effects, and generative AI for image and video.

One of the high-points, as far as I'm concerned, is that it has no ads and exported videos are watermark-free.

A lot of 'free' mobile video editors could learn from this. There are no added intros and outros promoting Adobe either. So you can basically start creating video for social channels immediately. You can read the full write-up in Adobe's blog here. But is it any good? Here are my thoughts...

First impressions

I spent the last hour toying with Adobe Premiere to see whether it lives up to the promise of creating "stand out edits to share on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook."

Spoiler alert: It's good stuff. A responsive app that's worth checking out if you need a free video editor that does everything I'd expect it to do. Especially if you have a paid Adobe account for those extra AI generations.

Layout

Adobe Premiere on Android feels very clean, very sensibly laid out. That's a relief, because often I find Adobe's user interface to be unintuitive as a result of too many features. A phone screen is the last place you want to combat that.

Along the top of the screen are shortcuts for the main functions. This includes 'New from files' and 'Create for YouTube Shorts', as well as AI generations tools 'Image to video' and 'Text to video'. Once you start editing, your most recent projects can be found below this.

Under those key tools are a ridiculous number of templates for quickly spinning up videos - notably, there are ones designed specifically for YouTube, with "exclusive music and effects."

All in all, it's very simple to jump into the timeline and start creating.

Editing process

Editing video is incredibly straightforward. It's not laggy or clunky like I've seen with some mobile apps.

In fact, I was impressed how responsive it was overall, even with relatively larger video files. Helpfully, there are undo and re-do buttons sitting beneath the large preview window. An absolute godsend when editing on a phone.

Once you have a clip loaded on to the timeline, double-tapping the video brings up the handles for trimming. There's a Plus sign for adding (or generating) more clips. And you can select from a range of transitions with the tap of a button.

Running along the bottom of the screen are options to add text and audio, modify aspect ratio. I particularly liked this, because inside the frame options are logos, letting you know which ratio is suitable for which platforms.

AI generation

You do get access to a limited number of free tokens for AI image and video generation.

And when I say limited, I mean it. It's not very generous, and Firefly eats through them. I managed to squeeze out a single 4-second 720p clip before I needed to upgrade (or rather, sign into my main account).

Still, the generation itself works well, and it's relatively quick. Functionally, it's exactly what you'd get if you were using Adobe Firefly in your browser, or the Premiere desktop app.

I like that you can define the first and last frames of a video, generate in 720p and 1080p resolutions, change the duration, and opt to add audio. But to really make the most of this part of the app, a paid subscription is essential.

Video export

Super-simple, this one. When you're done editing, tap the ever-present Export button in the upper-right corner. You're then able to either export direct or tweak the settings.

Those settings include changing the resolution (720p, 1080p, 4K), the frame rate, between 24 and 60fps, and quality (low, medium, high).

Once you've got it set, Adobe Premiere offers an estimated file size, which is a nice touch. I exported a 17-second video at 4K in highest quality. The 106.5MB video took 34 seconds to complete. I then had the option to share via the usual channels.

My initial verdict

The Android spin on Adobe Premiere is actually very good - although I'll be keen to put it under the full review process. But it's very easy to use, and the 4K res video export without watermarks is excellent.

The real catch is the laughably small AI generation limit. Unless you're a paid subscriber, I'd swerve those and use it strictly as an editor for your own clips. On that score, it delivers everything I'd expect from a free video editor for your phone.

• Where to get it: You can grab Adobe Premiere on Android free from the Google Play Store here

• City of Sydney has joined four other local Australian councils in banning the use of smart glasses in specific areas
• Banned in public pools, gyms, childcare centers, libraries and government buildings
• Separate ban covers public schools in Western Australia

Local government councils and public schools across Australia are continuing moves to rapidly ban the use of smart glasses in public areas, following the federal government’s announcement that use of the devices will be prohibited in government-run workplaces, services centers, laboratories and local council buildings.

The City of Sydney, whose jurisdiction covers a population of approximately 240,000 within Sydney’s central business district and surrounding inner suburbs, is the latest local government council to enforce the ban, following the City of Yarra in Melbourne, City of Brisbane and Canterbury-Bankstown council in suburban Sydney.

The ban covers public pools, gyms, childcare centers, libraries and town halls, and the council will update signage and guidance to enforce it.

“There is a policy in place at our pools that covers the use of recording devices, including smart glasses,” a City of Sydney spokesperson told TechRadar.

“Recording without consent is not permitted and recording devices are prohibited in change rooms and other areas of our aquatic facilities.

“Conditions of Entry, published online and displayed on reception screens, have recently been updated to strengthen protections against non-consensual recording, with specific reference to smart glasses. Reminders have been issued through member communications. Staff respond when they observe behaviour that may be inconsistent with the Conditions of Entry. Matters can be escalated to police if needed.”

In a separate statement, the Western Australian government also announced today that students, teachers, parents and contractors will be banned from wearing or storing smart glasses on school premises from the start of the next school term on October 12.

Western Australia's education minister Sabine Winton said keeping students and staff safe was a priority for the state government.

“This ban is about taking a common sense, preventative approach,” she said. “We know that smart glasses are becoming more accessible and can have a detrimental impact on people’s privacy and wellbeing.”

'We need an import ban'

City of Sydney councilor Matthew Thompson added that there will be exemptions for those who use the glasses as accessibility devices, including individuals with vision and hearing loss.

“Overseas we’re seeing women being targeted and harassed in public and recorded without their consent. We don’t want what’s happening in the US to happen here,” Thompson’s motion read.

“That’s why we’re banning smart glasses and other wearable recording devices from all of our pools, gyms, childcare [centers], libraries and other council spaces.

Thompson has also called for the Australian federal government to impose an import ban on these smart glasses until privacy laws and standards are strengthened.

“Cheap wearable devices like smart glasses are already flooding the market. But instead of stopping this problem, the federal Labor government has dumped it on to councils to sort out.

“We need an import ban on these cheap, intrusive devices until we have stronger privacy protections and clear standards implemented nationally.”

‘Pervert’ glasses and privacy concerns

First widely popularized by Meta, smart glasses have since been replicated by other brands and have recently come under heavy criticism for their potential for harassment and for recording members of the public without their consent — earning the nickname ‘pervert glasses’ in some circles.

A University of Sydney study found that from a sample size of 350 public Instagram videos shot with smart glasses, around 60% could potentially be classified as harassment of a person or people.

Similar bans have also been introduced in the UK and the US, including in courtrooms in England, Wales and New York state, as well as being prohibited from use by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees.

• A recent update introduced a new bug affecting pasting in Excel
• Excel 2016 just got a hotfix, but Microsoft admits issues can persist
• Temporary workaround is available by selecting 'Paste Special'

Although a recent Microsoft Excel security update brought with it a highly annoying bug impacting copying and pasting functionalities across the spreadsheet software, it's already issued a partial fix.

Just days after the glitch was introduced with a September 8 2026 security update (KB5002914), the company has released a hot fix rather than forcing users to wait until the next cycle.

But this fix in particular only applies to Excel 2016, which is unlikely to have as much reach and global usage as Microsoft 365 versions of the app, therefore many users won't even have been aware of the issue.

Excel just got an important new fix

Other non-365 versions of Excel were also impacted. "In Microsoft Excel 2024, 2021, 2019, and 2016, as well as Excel Online in Office Online Server, the paste operation might fail silently," the company explained in a status update.

"Although users try to paste content, the source remains selected and the destination is unmodified," the update reads, confirming that users didn't receive an error message or sound to let them know of the failure.

Office LTSC 2021 and 2024 are officially fixed, Microsoft confirmed, but a only a mitigation is available for Office LTSC 2019 and Office 2016, so users may still experience some problems.

Thankfully, while a full fix is in the works, Microsoft offered up a pretty simple workaround. Pasting 'Special' from the Home tab is all it takes, with conditional formatting apparently causing headaches for now.

• Canva ProSuite connects Affinity, Cavalry, Flourish, and Leonardo into one ecosystem
• Affinity and Cavalry stay free as ProSuite gains over 100 additions
• Scene Decomposition uses AI to split flattened pictures into separate editable components

Canva is giving Affinity a major set of upgrades as it tries to make its professional creative tools more useful against established competitors.

The free software now adds photography, design, automation and file compatibility features alongside deeper connections with Cavalry, Canva and other creative products.

The changes form part of Canva ProSuite, which brings Affinity, Cavalry, Flourish and Leonardo together while keeping Affinity and Cavalry available without payment.

Affinity gets a major photography and design update

The photography changes are particularly extensive, adding batch importing and an improved RAW processing system for users handling large collections.

Preset looks can now be applied across multiple images, while new correction tools address mixed illumination and camera movement during editing.

Scene Decomposition uses AI to separate flattened pictures into editable components, allowing photographers to modify individual elements without rebuilding images manually.

A dedicated Astrophotography Studio adds specialized controls for photographers working with night skies and astronomical subjects during detailed image processing.

Affinity is also expanding the range of files it can handle, including support for bringing InDesign documents directly into the application.

The company says this gives users access to major industry file formats while reducing obstacles when moving projects between different creative applications.

Integration with Canva Brand Kit and Canva Sheets also adds a route for connecting design work with brand assets and structured information.

Other additions cover vector editing, typography, brushes, noise reduction, high dynamic range processing and export controls, giving professional users more options.

Sony ARW6 support, OpenColorIO display emulation, and improved output matching also extend Affinity's capabilities for photography and color-managed production workflows.

The release includes more than 60 Affinity additions, while Canva says ProSuite brings over 100 additions and changes across its connected products this year.

Canva connects Affinity with motion and AI tools

Canva is also connecting Affinity with Cavalry, its software for creating motion graphics and animations, as part of the new ProSuite.

Cavalry receives more than 50 changes, including new shape controls, lighting effects, graph editing improvements, and expanded SVG handling for motion designers.

The integration lets selected elements within Cavalry projects become editable inside Canva, while keeping the underlying animation protected.

This arrangement could allow teams to make limited changes without repeatedly sending modification requests back to motion designers and animators across team workflows.

Affinity and Cavalry can also connect with AI assistants through ProSuite's AI Connectors, allowing repetitive operations to be handled from natural-language instructions.

“We're genuinely excited to be releasing such a huge swathe of new tools for professional designers, animators, photographers and other advanced users,” said Duncan Clark, CEO of Pro Design at Canva.

“We asked professionals what they actually needed to power their creative work…there’s a lot of noise right now about AI replacing human creatives, but we believe professional craft matters more than ever. We want the Canva ProSuite to be where that craft lives and thrives.”

Affinity's new features, the Cavalry improvements and tighter connections across Canva's products give the free software a significantly larger professional toolkit.

• Some of those who've upgraded to macOS 27 aren't happy
• They're complaining about bugs with the interface and sluggishness
• The main problem is with Mission Control, but there's also flak being aimed at Apple due to other issues – and its testing department is under fire

Apple released macOS 27 Golden Gate last week, and some early adopters are flagging up bugs and regretting their upgrade – although others are finding the new version smooth sailing.

The Reddit 'megathread' on macOS 27 bugs and issues highlights some of the more common problems that those upgrading are running into, some of which appear to be more severe than others.

The biggest beef is with Mission Control which a number of macOS 27 users are describing as broken. It's in pretty bad shape by all accounts.

As one user put it in the above thread: "Been reading about this and finally tried it because I never use Mission Control and you're absolutely right. Most NON smooth experience I've ever seen on a Mac."

Someone replies to agree, and goes further: "It is, without a doubt, the most significant visual glitch I've encountered as a decades-long Mac user."

Another Redditor observes: "I'm a power user of multi-desktops and Mission Control and I can't believe they've broken such a fundamental feature. Yes, the animations are broken and sluggish, but the issue that breaks my workflow is when you drag a desktop to another monitor it leaves an unresponsive black screen behind.

"The only fix is to create a new desktop on the black screen, switch to this new desktop, then delete the new desktop."

In a separate thread complete with an illustrative video clip, another Redditor declared that Mission Control is "glitchier, laggier, and buggier," and that: "The animations judder, and sometimes when switching to a full screen app I'll get a completely black screen."

They added: "I've been using Macs for 20+ years, and remember [when] Exposé was released. Never have I ever experienced such a Windows-esque bug in macOS."

On top of this, there are complaints about sluggishness with some other areas of the interface in macOS 27 Golden Gate, including the menu bar and Control Center.

There are also frustrations being vented about Spotlight search not working properly, but this is apparently a symptom of the system reindexing after the installation of the new version of macOS.

Analysis: mission statement

The biggest problem is clearly Mission Control, but stuttering, sluggishness and glitchy animations can reportedly extend to other areas of macOS 27.

That said, there are a notable amount of folks who are finding that macOS 27 runs nice and smoothly for them, and they're praising it as a vast improvement over macOS 26 (although that isn't difficult given that Tahoe was a messy release for many reasons).

You may experience some slowdown with Golden Gate due to search indexing, as mentioned above, but once that work is done, those performance hiccups should disappear, and macOS 27 will hopefully settle down.

If you use Mission Control, though – and granted, a lot of people don't, as it's designed for power-users, and those running apps across multiple virtual desktops or monitors – it seems that for now, macOS 27 is best avoided. Those in this boat might want to wait until the 27.1 release in the hope that it brings a resolution.

It is a bit baffling that a feature should be pushed out in a clearly wonky state – there's no arguing that something is wrong with Mission Control – and this has brought up a related issue with Apple's beta testing of the desktop operating system.

As one tester tells us: "Many years ago, I did actually get responses [from Apple] to bugs submitted and updates on where it was heading. I've submitted a lot of bugs and since Tahoe (maybe earlier) I haven't received any feedback on my submissions and the bugs that I submitted still exist in the official release of Golden Gate. I don't think that anyone is reviewing the bug reports anymore."

That's in reply to a post that says: "The very long list of serious bugs were reported extensively and often during the beta to Apple. Apple did what they always do with macOS beta feedback. Your video [of the glitchy Mission Control interface] is the result."

Others agree that the process of beta testing and feedback seems to have gone downhill in recent times, hence the comparison of macOS to Windows. Microsoft has long taken flak for its QA department which, as I've argued many times, needs some serious attention – but this subject just isn't talked about. I doubt Apple will be talking about these testing-related assertions, either, but hopefully Mission Control will get the attention it needs behind the scenes.

For now, a good number of macOS users who stuck on Sequoia because Tahoe was overly buggy and problematic are still holding off upgrading to Golden Gate, and I can see why some folks might think it's prudent to exercise caution here. Those macOS 25 holdouts will continue to watch and wait, no doubt, and that's a bad look for Apple.

It’s almost time for Meta Connect, with the brand hosting its annual event on September 23 and 24. Here, we’re expecting to see several new devices, with a focus on smart glasses.

Software updates are also likely, including to Meta Muse, but between the RAM crisis and a privacy backlash against the company’s smart specs, this might not be an entirely rosy affair.

So below, we’ve detailed the seven major things to expect at Meta Connect 2026 — covering both the good and the bad.

1. Camera-free Meta smart glasses

While smart glasses like the Ray-Ban Meta can be extremely useful, they’re also facing a major backlash right now, with many people worrying about them being used as spy glasses to photograph and video people without their knowledge or consent. As a result, Meta might respond by launching camera-free smart glasses.

These are rumored to land at Meta Connect, and would likely focus on conversational interactions with Meta’s AI chatbot. It makes sense for Meta to launch these, though how useful or appealing they will be when the AI can’t see what you’re looking at remains to be seen.

2. The Project Phoenix mixed reality headset

We’ve been hearing for a while that Meta is working on a mixed reality headset codenamed Project Phoenix, and while this reportedly won’t launch until 2027, we might get an official look at it during Meta Connect.

From what we’ve seen so far, this might look more like smart glasses than the Meta Quest 3S headset, despite featuring both AR and VR functionality. However, Project Phoenix has been pictured with a cable running down from it, suggesting that perhaps the battery and/or processor are external, thereby allowing for a slim design.

We don’t know much else about this yet, but that might change at Meta Connect.

3. New Oakley and Ray-Ban glasses

We’re probably due a second generation of the Oakley Meta glasses by now, and there’s also a chance we’ll see the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3, though it might be too soon for them at this year's Connect.

The Oakley Meta specs are sportier than the Ray-Ban line, with things like wrap-around designs and better water resistance, so expect the second generation to continue with that focus.

As for the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3, leaks suggest these could have better battery life, smarter AI, and improved audio.

4. A global launch for the Meta Ray-Ban Display Glasses

The Meta Ray-Ban Display Glasses are currently only available in the US, but hopefully at Meta Connect we might see these display-packing specs go global.

It’s certainly about time — originally these were planned to get a wider launch in early 2026, but thanks to "unprecedented demand and limited inventory" this was delayed.

But if you’re hoping to get your hands on them you’ll also have to be prepared to pay a lot, as in the US they retail for $800, so you can expect similarly high pricing elsewhere.

5. Price hikes

Alongside new and improved products, we might also see new and not at all improved prices for some things, thanks to the ongoing RAM crisis.

In other words, don’t be surprised if prices for new generation models of the likes of Oakley Meta and Ray-Ban Meta glasses are higher than the current generation.

In the case of Ray-Ban Meta glasses we already saw a price hike for the second generation, so another for the third would be extremely undesirable, but may also be unavoidable.

6. A Meta Muse AI update

Meta Muse — Meta’s AI agent that can send emails, fill out forms, shop, and do other tasks for you — only launched recently, but as a major new service it’s likely to be getting a lot of attention from Meta, so improvements are probably already in the works.

Meta Connect then would be a prime time to find out about any upcoming changes — and perhaps even for Meta to roll out a software update for it or a new model. Or perhaps Meta will announce availability in countries other than the US, so that more of us can try it.

7. Updates addressing the privacy backlash

As well as launching some camera-free smart glasses, Meta may use Connect to announce some software updates aimed at addressing privacy concerns in its existing specs.

Already, the company has rolled out an update that will stop the glasses recording if you cover the LED once a recording has started, but Meta may well be cooking up additional changes to further prevent surreptitious photography and video recording.

Indeed, Meta's VP of Wearables Alex Himel recently said "we’re going to keep rolling out updates like this to make sure the capture LED can reliably alert bystanders when photos or videos are being captured for someone’s gallery." So while it’s unclear what exactly those updates will be, we might learn about some of them at Meta Connect.

• The Australian government might ban smart glasses at all of its agencies
• Devices like Meta’s glasses have garnered controversy over user privacy
• The move would follow Australia’s banning of social media for under-16s

The Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have been in hot water ever since they launched amid concerns they could be used to record people without their consent. And the privacy backlash has grown so vocal that the Australian government is now considering a “world-leading” ban on the devices inside any workplace run by the state.

The ban would affect any government-run offices, services centers, laboratories and local councils. It goes a lot further than the state’s current position, which is to allow workplaces to set their own rules on the controversial wearable tech. While the ban would affect most municipal locations, schools and hospitals run by the government would be allowed to decide their own rules on the glasses.

Katy Gallagher, the Australian public service minister, said that the nation’s public has been asked for feedback on the next move, adding that “Smart glasses can raise legitimate privacy and security concerns, particularly because of their ability to record and capture information.”

“We need clear and consistent guidance for public servants,” Gallagher said. So far, no national government has banned smart glasses across its agencies, with the Australian Albanese administration saying it sought to create a “world-leading” standard.

A privacy storm

Meta’s smart glasses have attracted growing criticism for their potential to encourage harassing behavior and to record members of the public without their consent. They’ve been popularly branded “pervert glasses” in light of the controversy, while a University of Sydney study found that of 350 public Instagram videos shot with the glasses, around 60% could be classified as potentially containing harassment of a person or people.

The negative blowback has not been aided by Meta’s abysmal record on user privacy. The company has been accused of harvesting triple the data of its rivals, ignoring users’ desires not to be tracked, feeding untold reams of private data into its artificial intelligence (AI) models, and more. The company’s apps, including Facebook and Instagram, have been labeled among the worst offenders for privacy violations — news that will likely surprise few people.

If the Australian ban goes into place, it would only be the most sweeping of a similar set of moves made around the world. Courts in England, Wales and New York state have banned smart glasses, as has the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Several cities and local councils in Australia have barred the glasses in playgrounds, childcare centers, gyms and public swimming pools.

And Australia also took the lead on restricting social media usage by children when it banned under-16s from using a range of platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and more.

Considering the current hostile reaction to smart glasses, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see other governments follow Australia’s cue and outlaw the devices at their state facilities and workplaces. Until Meta can allay public concerns over the privacy-busting potential of its glasses, this storm isn’t likely to pass any time soon.

• Snap’s Specs are its sixth-generation AR glasses
• They may be hefty devices, but they’re surprisingly comfortable to wear and easy to use
• The Specs come packed with engaging features, including a new AI assistant

It’s been almost a decade since Snap Inc. released its first Spectacles smart glasses back in 2016, and the series has grown a lot since then. The original pair was essentially an extension of Snapchat, designed to record short 10-second clips for the social platform.

Since then, Snap’s tech has grown into a robust augmented reality platform, improving both the hardware and software along the way.

For Fall 2026, Snap Inc. will soon launch what is technically its sixth generation of Spectacles. However, it seems that the company is looking for a fresh start, as these smart glasses will simply be known as the Snap Specs.

The Specs were initially unveiled at the Augmented World Expo 2026 in June, and it was revealed then that the company was placing greater emphasis on regular consumers rather than strictly an enterprise audience.

I had the opportunity to try out the Specs myself at Snap Inc.’s headquarters in Santa Monica, California. And it was instantly clear to me that the glasses are meant to be the entry point to a vast AR ecosystem. While I had a lot of fun using them in an early demo, the experience wasn’t without its quirks.

Big frames, vibrant screen

While these 6th-gen Specs are much slimmer than the previous generation, they are still quite chunky, sporting thick black frames made out of a Swiss TR90 polymer.

Snap offers two sizes: a 47mm model weighing 132 grams and a 52mm model weighing 136 grams. For anyone keeping score, that's significantly heavier than a pair of Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses, which weigh just 50 grams. But Snap did a good job of distributing weight. The 52mm devices felt quite comfortable on my head. The smaller 47mm glasses, on the other hand, pinched my temples.

These glasses project a digital screen with a 51-degree field of view (FoV) in front of your eyes, providing a decent amount of viewing space. Snap equates the floating display to a 24-inch desktop monitor. Combine that with the liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) lenses, and you get high-resolution, vibrant images.

Smart, intuitive software

Most of my hands-on time with the Specs was spent using the consumer-facing software. The UI is clean and easy to understand. Features are split between the Home and My Lenses menus, with the main window remaining visible in your immediate view. Digital objects can be repositioned using a simple pinching gesture.

In my experience, dragging and dropping windows was a little finicky. The process was smooth most of the time, although there were instances when the glasses didn’t register my hand movements, and I had to repeat the gesture several times.

Navigating the interface takes some getting used to, although there is an alternative. Holding your left hand up toward the camera brings up a quick menu that lets you quickly navigate to the Home screen as well as other parts of the system.

A major aspect of the Specs is the new on-board AI assistant, Specs Intelligence. Like other AI assistants, such as Google Gemini, Specs Intelligence can provide contextually relevant information in response to voice commands. It will keep listening until instructed otherwise. Do note that you’ll need to speak up for the microphones to pick up your voice.

It also builds an understanding of your routines so it can surface useful information when you need it. I found Specs Intelligence to be one of the best parts of the glasses. It’s quick to operate, delivering accurate search results and suggestions in almost no time.

Seeing the Apps

I had access to a few third-party apps, namely Spotify and Google Docs. When it comes to audio, the glasses' stems have speakers on either end that point directly toward your ears. Music from Spotify came through crystal clear, with a bit of punchy bass. The best part is how little audio leakage there is. I held the glasses close to my face during the demo, and I could barely hear the music.

With Google Docs, you can connect a wireless keyboard to the Specs glasses via Bluetooth for on-the-go work. It’s a nice utility to have, although there was noticeable latency between the keyboard input and what appeared on the page. I asked if I could connect a mouse to the wearables. I was told that currently, users can't connect computer mice.

Outside the third-party software, there were plenty of first-party apps, including an internet browser, an image gallery, navigation, direct access to Snapchat, and, most notably, a translation tool. What’s cool about the translation tool is that it translates other languages in real time. I had a Snap representative speak to me in Italian, and the translated text appeared on the display a few seconds after they finished speaking.

Admittedly, I don’t know how accurate the translation tool is. I don’t speak Italian, so I can’t verify it myself, but we were able to have a fluid conversation without issue.

The early verdict

Snap’s new Specs were pretty fun to use. They’re comfortable to wear despite their size, and the software felt intuitive. Yes, the gesture controls were a little inconsistent, but there is still time before the official launch to address those quirks.

At the time of this writing, you can pre-order the Snap Specs for an eye-watering $2,195 (around £1,640 / AU$3,090) with a $200 deposit, making them quite the investment.

A release date is set for sometime this Fall (in other words, sometime before the end of November). An exact date has not been given. It is worth pointing out that Snap Inc. will let interested shoppers try the smart glasses at the Specs First Look pop-up in the Westfield Century City shopping mall in Los Angeles, starting October 1. Given that date, an October launch seems likely.

It has been over a year since the European Accessibility Act (EAA) came into effect, and many organizations are still discovering gaps in the accessibility of their digital services. While websites, mobile apps, e-commerce platforms and digital banking services may meet recognized accessibility requirements, technical conformance alone does not always guarantee an accessible user experience.

People using assistive technologies can still encounter barriers such as confusing workflows, unclear error messages, or content that is difficult to interpret with screen readers.

Accessibility is increasingly viewed as an indicator of digital quality, rather than just a compliance obligation. Yet, making sure that digital experiences work for everyone requires more than good intentions. It depends on assessments, audits and real-world testing to validate accessibility in practice.

This challenge is especially significant for technology companies, where accessibility cannot be addressed by focusing on a single website or application. Instead, it must be managed across portfolios of products, development teams and release cycles.

This requires a continuous approach to accessibility, underpinned by a comprehensive accessibility ecosystem that combines assessments, audits, automated testing and insights from people with disabilities throughout the software development lifecycle.

Accessibility assessments and audits

Improving accessibility begins with understanding where barriers exist and how they affect users. Accessibility assessments provide a high-level view of accessibility risks, helping organizations identify priority issues early and determine where additional investigation is needed.

These assessments can combine automated tools with targeted manual reviews of designs and/or products to offer guidance on where organizations should focus their accessibility efforts for impactful quality improvement.

Accessibility audits take this process a step further. They provide a comprehensive evaluation of digital products against recognized standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) and the EAA, documenting accessibility issues, their severity and recommended remediation steps.

Unlike assessments, audits systematically evaluate entire products or services to validate conformance and propose a clear remediation roadmap. They may also go beyond websites and applications to include customer-facing digital content such as PDFs, presentations and other documents that are subject to accessibility legislation.

Together, assessments and audits establish a foundation for an effective accessibility program. However, simply demonstrating technical compliance does not necessarily guarantee a positive user experience. Individuals using assistive technologies may still encounter barriers that automated checks and standards-based testing cannot detect.

Therefore, audits should form part of a more comprehensive accessibility strategy, complemented by expert evaluation and feedback from people with disabilities.

Why real-world insights matter

Automated accessibility testing tools have become an important part of modern software development. They quickly identify common coding issues, such as missing alternative text, inadequate color contrast and incorrect heading structures, helping teams resolve straightforward problems earlier in development.

These tools also integrate easily into CI/CD pipelines, making them an effective way to catch basic accessibility issues before software is released.

AI is expanding what these tools can do. It can help recognize patterns, group similar issues and recommend possible fixes, thereby reducing repetitive work for development teams. However, AI cannot replace human judgement; machine-generated fixes may be inaccurate, address only superficial issues or create a false sense of accessibility if the underlying user experience has not been properly evaluated.

Indeed, even with these advances, automated testing has its limits. As the W3C notes, “web accessibility evaluation tools cannot determine accessibility, they can only assist in doing so.” They cannot determine whether link text makes sense out of context, whether keyboard focus follows a logical order or how someone using a screen reader experiences a user journey.

While automated tools can highlight symptoms, they lack the human context needed to understand the full impact on usability.

This is why effective accessibility programs combine automated testing with manual expert reviews and testing by people with disabilities who rely on assistive technologies every day. Together, these approaches provide a more complete understanding of how people experience digital products, helping organizations identify accessibility barriers that automated testing alone may miss.

Building an accessibility ecosystem

Organizations should view accessibility as an ongoing capability rather than a one-off project with a fixed endpoint. Instead of depending solely on periodic audits, they need to create an accessibility ecosystem that integrates inclusive practices throughout the development process.

An effective ecosystem brings together developers, designers, accessibility specialists, automated testing tools and people with disabilities in a continuous feedback loop. By including accessibility considerations in planning, design, development, testing and release, organizations can identify and address barriers throughout the development process.

This reduces the effort required to resolve accessibility issues and helps avoid delays that can happen when problems emerge during final compliance checks.

How Microsoft moved beyond compliance

Several technology companies have already built accessibility ecosystems based on these principles. Microsoft, for example, has applied these principles at scale across its Cloud & AI portfolio, which includes more than 1,000 products.

Rather than treating accessibility as a compliance exercise, the company adopted inclusive design research by involving people with disabilities throughout the product lifecycle. As of 2024, this initiative has helped more than 50 product teams improve the inclusivity of products such as Azure and Power Apps, while changing the focus from simply meeting accessibility requirements to creating digital experiences that work well for everyone.

Cisco shifted accessibility left

Since 2022, Cisco has adopted a similar approach with Webex by embedding accessibility and inclusive design throughout the software development lifecycle. By involving individuals with disabilities earlier in the design and testing process and creating continuous feedback loops across development teams, Webex was able to resolve accessibility challenges sooner.

This approach also built greater empathy, collaboration and organizational understanding around inclusive product development.

Progress Software reduced accessibility issues by 60%

Progress Software has been following a comprehensive accessibility program for its client collaboration platform ShareFile since 2023. By combining expert accessibility reviews, testing by people with disabilities and AI-assisted code evaluation, the company reduced accessibility issues by more than 60 per cent year over year.

This investment in accessibility also strengthened customer retention and helped secure new business, reflecting the growing importance of accessibility in software procurement decisions.

Accessibility as a measure of software quality

The EAA has intensified the focus on digital accessibility, but its influence extends beyond just compliance, encouraging organizations to make accessibility an integral part of software development.

Assessments highlight accessibility risks, audits validate compliance with recognized standards, and real-world testing reveals how individuals using assistive technologies experience digital products in practice. Collectively, these activities provide organizations with the evidence and insights required to improve accessibility throughout the development process.

For organizations creating complex digital products, accessibility has become an important indicator of software quality. By embedding accessibility into everyday development practices, organizations can deliver digital experiences that are more inclusive and usable for everyone, while also reducing the cost and complexity of addressing accessibility barriers later in the development process.

We've featured the best text-to-speech software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Canon announced its 3D image generation 'Dual Pixel 3D' tech
• It uses depth data from a single shot via Dual Pixel CMOS AF, through a free Windows-only app coming in October
• The EOS R10 and most models up to the EOS R5 series are compatible

Canon introduced a new Dual Pixel CMOS-type sensor and autofocus system in the EOS R5 back in 2020, and a string of cameras have since inherited this tech, most recently the EOS R8 Mark II announced today. And it's these cameras that just got a free upgrade that can add another dimension to photos: Dual Pixel 3D.

The new software leverages "depth and phase-detection data captured in a single shot via Dual Pixel CMOS AF", says Canon, using "an exclusive algorithm to convert your photos into highly realistic 3D imagery", plus 3D models in OBJ or GLB formats, or as an MP4 video, "complete with rich photographic textures."

This depth-adding tech will come in the (free) Dual Pixel 3D Converter software, which will be available for Windows only (Windows 11 64-bit 24H2 or later), from October 3.

So what exactly can users expect from the software, and which cameras are compatible? Let's take a look.

An extra dimension

Billed as 'simple 3D image generation technology', Dual Pixel 3D enables users to create immersive three-dimensional images and models from a single RAW photo, without needing specialized equipment or viewing devices. Canon also says the technology works with JPEGs captured by the new EOS R8 Mark II.

These files contain depth information from slightly different views, captured by each pixel's two photodiodes, which are then converted into 3D shape data.

Users will be able to fine-tune the degree of depth in the new software, for a more pronounced 3D effect or a subtler appearance. The depth information in Dual Pixel CMOS-captured photos also simplifies background removal, should users want to output a subject onto a plain background as a 3D model, or as a stereographic photo.

Can has shared tips for how to take photos designed to be converted for 3D on its YouTube channel (see below).

Photographers working in product and still life photography stand to benefit from the creative possibilities in particular. We'll be sure to try out the new software when it's released on October 3, and share our experience of making 3D imagery with it.

Compatible Canon cameras and lenses

Here's every Canon mirrorless camera that features Dual Pixel CMOS AF and can, therefore, enjoy the new Dual Pixel 3D feature, provided images are captured with a compatible lens:

• EOS R5 Mark II
• EOS R5
• EOS R6 Mark III
• EOS R6 Mark II
• EOS R7
• EOS R8 Mark II
• EOS R8
• EOS R10

And you'll need to be using one of these lenses;

RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM

RF24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM

RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM

RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM

RF50mm F1.8 STM

RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM

RF70-200mm F4 L IS USM

RF85mm F2 MACRO IS STM

RF100mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM

RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

RF-S18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

• New camera-free smart glasses from Meta are rumored
• The wearable could be unveiled as early as next week
• A new glasses-detecting app is proving popular with users

It's fair to say that the various iterations of Meta's smart glasses had been quite well received by users — as you'll see from our own reviews — but over time, the general public has become less and less comfortable with the idea of being secretly spied on through the cameras embedded in these wearables.

That might explain Meta's plans to release some spectacles with cameras on board, as reported by The Information. According to the outlet's sources, the glasses have the codename Luna, and will be available in two styles called Clubmaster and Burbank.

With no camera, the focus will be on the audio capabilities of the glasses, which will let you have conversations with Meta's own AI chatbot. The report says we could get a grand unveiling at the Meta Connect event next week, on September 23 and 24.

While Meta's smart specs have always been fitted with LED lights that show when they're recording, modders were finding ways around this, enabling more covert video and photo capture. While those mods have since been disabled and prevented by software updates, it's still left people with a general sense of unease.

The backlash continues

As Meta apparently preps its next pair of smart glasses, Wired reports on the ZuckOff app that takes a swing at the Meta CEO in its name, and alerts users when they might be in the presence of someone wearing Meta glasses. The app uses Bluetooth to scan the surrounding area for these wearables.

With several thousand downloads on both Android and iOS, the app is clearly proving popular. It's free to download and use in its basic form, with a pro version available for $9.99 / £9.99 / AU$14.99 a year that scans continuously and gives you scan histories.

It's not your only option either: if you're on Android, Nearby Glasses is open source and free to use, and does a similar sort of job as ZuckOff without the provocative name. That app has now racked up more than 100,000 downloads.

There's definitely been a shift in perception when it comes to glasses that can record, warning light or no warning light — even though these specs have been around for years. There's even talk of bans and government regulation coming in at some point, which Meta might be trying to get ahead of with its next pair of glasses.

The debate around technology sovereignty is becoming increasingly important. As governments accelerate their adoption of AI tools and modern digital infrastructure, attention is increasingly focused on where systems are hosted, where data is stored and where technology providers are based.

These are important considerations, but sovereignty ultimately comes down to a broader question: how much control does an organization retain over the technology it depends on?

For governments, that means having visibility into how systems operate, understanding how decisions are reached, maintaining oversight of data and retaining the flexibility to adapt as circumstances change.

Technology sovereignty should therefore be measured through operational control, accountability and resilience. Geography forms part of that picture, but the ability to govern technology throughout its lifecycle is what creates lasting sovereignty.

Sovereignty is tested when circumstances change

The clearest measure of sovereignty is the level of control an organization retains when circumstances change.

Geopolitical developments, regulatory requirements, supplier changes, cyber incidents and technology failures can all place pressure on critical infrastructure. Strong technology foundations give governments the ability to respond, maintain essential services and continue making decisions with confidence.

This principle of control under distress should sit at the heart of the sovereignty debate.

Governments benefit from access to global expertise, innovation and specialist technology providers. Modern public services depend on collaboration across technology ecosystems, and this access creates significant opportunities to improve efficiency and deliver better outcomes for citizens.

The priority should be creating technology environments that preserve government control while taking advantage of this innovation. Governments need the ability to adapt systems, manage their data and make informed technology decisions as requirements evolve.

Data is the foundation of sovereign technology

The conversation around AI sovereignty often starts with the technology itself. The more fundamental consideration is the quality and governance of the data that supports it.

Public sector data often sits across departments, legacy platforms and different technology environments. Bringing these sources together can provide governments with a more complete and trusted view of the information they rely on.

This is particularly important as public bodies explore AI for areas such as fraud detection, healthcare, taxation and public benefits. These applications depend on accurate, accessible and well-governed information.

Strong data foundations also support transparency. When organizations understand where information comes from, how it is connected and how it is used, they gain greater confidence in the decisions produced by the technology built on top of it.

The effectiveness of public sector AI will therefore depend heavily on the integrity, accessibility and governance of the data beneath it.

Choice creates resilience

Technology sovereignty also depends on maintaining meaningful choice.

Governments need the freedom to adopt new technologies, work with different providers and evolve their systems as requirements change. Interoperability, open standards and portable data can support this flexibility by allowing different technologies to operate together and making future transitions more manageable.

This creates a more resilient technology environment. Individual components can evolve as better solutions become available, while the wider system continues to operate effectively.

Supplier diversity also plays an important role. A competitive technology market gives public bodies greater choice, encourages innovation and creates stronger incentives for providers to deliver value.

For critical public services, competition therefore forms part of the resilience strategy. A diverse supplier ecosystem gives governments greater flexibility and strengthens their ability to respond to changing circumstances.

AI requires transparency by design

The growth of AI makes transparency increasingly important. As these systems become more capable of supporting complex decisions, governments need clear visibility into how they operate and how their outputs are produced.

This starts with understanding the data, logic and processes that contribute to an AI- supported decision. Effective governance then provides the oversight required to monitor performance, identify issues and assess outcomes over time.

This is especially important where technology influences people's access to healthcare, taxation, benefits or other essential public services.

Explainability, auditability and human oversight provide the foundations for responsible AI adoption. They give public bodies the confidence to use increasingly sophisticated technology while maintaining accountability for the decisions it supports.

Transparency also strengthens public trust. Citizens are more likely to have confidence in technology when institutions can clearly explain how it is being used and how decisions can be reviewed.

Accountability remains with government

Governments can work with private organizations to provide infrastructure, software and specialist expertise. Public accountability remains with the government.

This makes governance an essential part of technology strategy. Procurement decisions need to consider functionality and cost alongside questions of data control, transparency, interoperability and long-term flexibility.

A technology solution should support the government's ability to understand its systems, oversee their performance and make changes as circumstances evolve.

This approach also creates a stronger relationship between government and technology providers. Clear expectations around governance and accountability give suppliers the opportunity to innovate while providing public bodies with the confidence that they remain in control of the outcomes.

Measuring sovereignty through control

Technology sovereignty should ultimately be measured by the capabilities a government retains.

Can it understand the technology it relies on? Can it assess and challenge the decisions it supports? Can it access and manage its data? Can it adapt its systems as requirements change? Can it maintain essential services during periods of disruption?

These questions provide a practical framework for assessing sovereignty.

The objective is to create technology environments that combine innovation with control. Governments can benefit from global technology, specialist expertise and rapidly developing AI capabilities while retaining the governance, flexibility and resilience required to serve citizens effectively.

The strongest sovereign technology environments will give governments confidence in the systems they operate, visibility into the decisions those systems support and the flexibility to evolve as circumstances change.

Ultimately, technology sovereignty is about maintaining operational authority. It is about giving governments the capability to understand, govern and adapt the technology that supports essential public services.

Sovereignty is measured by the control an organization retains over its technology, its data and its decisions.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Meta Connect 2026 is fast approaching, and it seems a big surprise hardware announcement has just been leaked — by none other than Meta itself. It’s not much but our first official look at the so-called Project Phoenix has me very excited that we might finally get the Meta Quest Pro successor I’ve been begging for.

The leak was spotted by prolific Meta leaker Luna, who found a never-before-seen headset in the latest Horizon OS prescription lens firmware. Because it only shows how lenses are inserted into the new design, we don’t get a full look at the whole thing, but it seems XR glasses might be a better description than XR headset.

That’s because the front of the headset looks incredibly slim. Not quite Meta Ray-Ban levels, but a fraction of what the Meta Quest 3 and 3S were thickness wise. There also appears to be no head strap. Instead, we see the display unit supported by glasses' stems sitting behind the ears of the wearer.

What this leak seemingly confirms is the rumors that Meta has been working on an ultra-lightweight headset design. One where the battery and a chunk of the processing power are all moved to an external puck — something also teased by a cable we see extending from one of the Meta device’s stems.

Of course we should take all leaks and speculation with a pinch of salt, however considering some details are now coming directly from Meta itself, I suspect this may be a case of where if there’s smoke there’s fire.

If so, I couldn’t be more excited. Following the disappointing start to VR in 2026, this launch might turns things around (at least somewhat).

What I've been waiting for

XR hardware housing its battery in an external puck is nothing new; however, moving processing power in there too is far less common — the only one I’ve experienced is Xreal’s Aura glasses, though it works incredibly well.

By taking as much as possible out of the headset, you can significantly drop the weight of the machine, and, because you’re tethered to something in your pocket, your movement won’t be restricted as it can be when you’re connected to a PC or console.

This makes something capable, comfortable, and somewhat mobile. That said, it seems Phoenix will still be more headset-like than glasses-like, so I’m not sure I see myself exploring the outside world while wearing it.

For gaming and entertainment, there are other specs to consider (such as processing power, display quality, and content support), but where this design wins out is for productivity.

I’ve tried spending entire working weeks immersed in XR and my tests have proven it’s incredibly uncomfortable. It’s fine for a few hours at a time, maybe for the one-off day, but not for eight hours a day five days straight. That’s nightmarish.

But the lightest model I’ve tried is the 545g Samsung Galaxy XR. If Meta’s headset can drop to 200g or less, then it could easily be something I wear for a whole day. Plus it would be super easy to slip into my rucksack to be productive in XR on the go — or kick back with a big-screen movie.

This is precisely why I’ve been wanting an ultra-lightweight XR headset to enter the scene, but so far I’ve been let down. Xreal Aura gets close, but as glasses, it doesn’t boast the same field of view as a headset — with a headset offering more virtual real estate for app windows.

All I need is for Meta’s headset to copy the Xreal Aura's ability to show what’s on my phone screen via a USB-C cable and it could be the perfect XR headset (provided the price isn’t too high).

We’ll have to wait and see what Meta unveils at Connect, but September 23, 2026, can’t come soon enough.

• Oracle thinks AI will change how we use software, but we'll still use software for years to come
• Agents will interact with structured software, humans will manage those agents
• Overall software revenue dropped 3% but cloud revenue rose 60%

Oracle co-CEO Mike Sicilia just declared on the company's first earnings call of fiscal 2027 that "AI is an accelerator, not a replacement for packaged applications," hitting back against the SaaSpocalypse argument that warns AI could replace traditional software as we know it today.

Central to his argument is that enterprise suites offer standardized, end-to-end processes and rules that AI can't replace. But that's not to say that AI won't have its role in software going forward.

Sicilia admitted that employee training and upskilling has long been a drawback for many software packages, and that's where companies like Oracle could actually lean on artificial intelligence to improve things.

AI isn't going to replace software, Oracle says

With AI, employees no longer need to navigate so many complicated apps themselves, and AI agents can carry out tasks using the company's existing workflows and business rules. Humans will likely move over to supervisory roles, Oracle predicts.

"AI changes this dynamic," Sicilia said, noting that agentic AI could drastically reduce the time and cost involved with deploying enterprise applications.

"We are incredibly confident in the potential for this new paradigm to deliver much more rapid ROI for our customers," he added. The company is slated to add a new agentic AI accelerator to automate parts of SaaS implementation as soon as next month.

But the company isn't without its own challenges when it comes to AI and software. Despite a 10% rise in quarterly SaaS revenue, overall software revenue dropped 3%. Cloud revenue, which includes the company's infrastructure and AI capacity, grew a considerable 60%.

Looking ahead, Oracle's standpoint is that AI may change software interfaces, but it won't actually replace the software that lies beneath.

• Windows 11's latest update breaks the sound on some PCs
• The September update also messes with File History
• Microsoft is working on a fix for the audio glitch, but we don't have an ETA

Windows 11's new update is breaking the audio on some PCs, thanks to the latest nasty bug that Microsoft has let slip through the QA testing net.

Windows Latest spotted that Microsoft has admitted that the September update has torpedoed the audio on some systems, in a post on the Windows release health dashboard.

Microsoft explains that: "Some USB Audio Class 1.0 devices might fail to start or produce audio."

As well as your speakers being eerily silent, the September update can also render the Sound panel in the Settings app unresponsive, which hardly helps when troubleshooting the issue.

One way you can check if your device is affected by this bug — assuming it has no audio, and you want to rule out other possible causes — is that in Device Manager you'll see a 'code 10' error ("this device cannot start") for your sound controller.

Windows Latest also informs us that this bug can affect microphones, as well as the PC's speakers.

It's not the only glitch with the September update, either, as users have reported problems with GPUs, and the File History feature going awry and failing to work.

File History is a capability that allows you to back up your files to an external drive (or elsewhere), so it's pretty important for those who use the functionality.

Analysis: negative vibes

Microsoft says this audio bug could manifest in other ways, so you might get sound when using standard stereo, but that audio might disappear when switching to multichannel playback. This means it's worth checking what your audio output is set to, and changing it back to stereo if it's currently using a different playback mode, which might just resurrect your sound.

Otherwise, there's not much that can be done, other than trying different audio output options on your Windows 11 system (Windows Latest observes that wireless audio devices don't appear to be affected). The other alternative is to remove the September update until Microsoft fixes this issue, although that will leave you without security patches.

When might we get a fix for this issue? Microsoft tells us: "We are working on a resolution and will update this documentation when more information is available."

This is a somewhat widespread problem by all accounts, and the File History bug is even more so, although the latter hasn't yet been acknowledged by Microsoft.

The reaction on Reddit is much as you might expect in terms of Windows 11 users blaming Microsoft's increased use of AI in coding the desktop OS, and observing that these kinds of bugs are why people don't want to migrate to the newer operating system.

As one Redditor observes: "And they wonder why people don't want to move from Windows 10."

Another notes: "Microslop can keep vibe coding all they want, I'm already on Linux."

Windows 10 is a sounder (ahem) bet for avoiding bugs, seeing as Microsoft isn't adding new features or messing with the codebase much, and ks only applying security fixes and essentials. That said, this of course doesn't mean Windows 10 is immune to glitches.

At IFA 2026 I got to experience several pairs of smart specs including two from RayNeo: the impressive GT Max glasses which could be my new favorites, and the RayNeo iO.

I’ve tried specs like iO before. They’re smart like Meta Ray-Bans — meaning they can link up with apps and offer AI assistance on the go — but hide clear displays for HUD elements in their lenses, and — crucially, given the current backlash against so-called "pervert glasses" — lack a camera. And so far I’ve been unimpressed by the models like this that I've tested.

While not having a camera is a big privacy boost, it also strips out an incredibly useful tool that can be used for capturing first-person memories or giving the AI the context of what you can see. What’s more, the app used to control the specs and on-device controls can be pretty terrible. I haven't felt convinced that the features left behind once you remove the camera are really for me.

Out of the gate, the app and controls have been solved in the RayNeo iO. My experience with the app is that it’s incredibly smooth, with features loading up quickly.

Meanwhile moving between apps on the glasses is a breeze with the Digital Crown, a physical dial and button (yes, just like the Apple Watch and AirPods Max control of the same name) that's perfect for cycling between options. It's less temperamental than swiping on the frame, and more convenient than always needing your phone in your hand.

As for the features themselves, I’m still not convinced they’re for me, but they do have their uses. You can see notification popups, create memos for yourself, there’s real-time translation and captions, you can call on AI assistance, have easy access to information such as stock prices, or use them as a teleprompter.

The captions actually seem like an awesome accessibility tool for anyone hard of hearing, and RayNeo showed me how a deaf person can see the text of someone talking to them without needing to be able to see them and watch them sign — the glasses can effectively tell someone hard of hearing if someone behind them is trying to get their attention.

The standout tool of iO is Life Log, though. The glasses may lack a camera, but they can record every detail of your day through microphones, which pick up the sounds of your conversations, meetings, and musings to create detailed diary notes of what you’ve experienced.

This includes summaries of activities, suggestions for to-do list items you should remember to complete, and it can be used to inform third party AI services about your life if you choose to share it.

If you've been following the announcement of Apple's Audio Intelligence tools on Apple Watch, it's very much like that.

Features vs privacy

On this, RayNeo made clear to me in an interview that these specs are privacy-first. No recordings are ever stored, instead the AI transcribes and summarizes in real-time. Plus, the whole process is handled on device — across your glasses and phone — so nothing is shared with a server unless you choose to share it. Additionally, you won’t need to enable data sharing to access the tool.

Of course, there are still privacy considerations. A lack of cameras will cut out some of people’s smart glasses uneasiness, but audio recording can still be invasive (and illegal without consent in some parts of the world, such as two-party consent states in the US). The specs do let others know when you’re recording with a light, though it’s not the most obvious indicator.

But I like that you have good control over your data and how it’s shared with RayNeo and other services without locking yourself out of AI functions entirely.

My only other concern with the specs based on my quick demo of them is the Conversation Assistance feature, mostly because it feels a tad icky to me.

You can have the specs listen in on a conversation you're having — with demo reels showcasing it being used on a date or at a job interview — and the AI will display prompts for what you should say next in response to someone. I could perhaps understand this for a job interview if you’re super nervous, but I just kind of hate it overall.

Social interactions, be they dating or talking in a meeting, are a human aspect we shouldn’t be offloading. We should be engaging actively with each other, participating in life, not sitting back mindlessly and letting an AI respond for us.

Of course I’ll need to review RayNeo iO properly to judge it fully, but my initial takeaway is they’re the best cameraless smart specs I’ve seen so far. And tools like live captioning could be an amazing accessibility tool for folks who are hard of hearing.

I’m still not convinced this design is my cup of tea, but that’s perfectly okay. Speaking to smart glasses wearers at IFA, there’s a growing love for these cameraless designs as the Meta Ray-Ban backlash grows, and perhaps RayNeo’s design and stable software will prove to me why if I spend more time with them.

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: 30-second Review

It's a weird time for smart glasses. After a moment in the sun (as sunglasses!) where companies like Meta sold millions of frames to willing customers seeking on-their-face intelligence and the ability to life-log with ever-present, eyebrow-level cameras, the worm has turned. Now people refer to smart glasses with cameras as "pervert glasses". Even Realities Even G2 smart display glasses (Even Realities G2) would seem to be the antidote to those concerns.

The relatively stylish specs live up to the smart expectations by connecting you to phone-based AI and delivering useful information to your eyes where and when you need it, but without the concerning cameras.

In some ways, Even Realities' approach is rather quaint. Instead of Augmented Reality, you get binocular, monochromatic waveguide displays that offer eye-level access to notifications, notes, translations, news, even a teleprompter, that only you can see. The imagery is sharp, but not rich. It's glanceable info that could be handy in a pinch, but is also stuff you can easily ignore.

These are smart lenses in the narrowest sense. They have four mics for listening, but no speakers. The microphones let you summon the AI (Even AI), which lives on the Even Realities iPhone app, but with no speakers, Even can't talk back to you. Even AI's responses appear before you as text on the waveguide screens.

The AI is not quite good enough to fully control the glasses, but that's where the gestures come in. While Even's G2 glasses look much like any other analog pair you'd wear, each arm ends in a large pill shape that houses the batteries and touch sensors. If you don't want to keep touching behind your ear, you can buy the $249 Even R1 ring, which Even Realities did supply to me. You wear the R1 on your index finger and use your thumb to recreate the taps, long presses, and swipes you'd do on the glasses. The Ring also records temperature, heart, and step measurements, readouts of which you can view on the glasses.

It's easy to see (pun intended) how useful these could be for turn-by-turn directions delivered from the app's map to the screen, and teleprompter text gently scrolling up, but inconsistent operation, missing features, finicky controls, and an overall feeling of, "Do I really need this?" left me wondering if half-way smart glasses are worth making the trip at all.

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: Price and availability

Even Realities G2 smart glasses were unveiled earlier this year and are now shipping for $599 / £599 / AU$649. If you need prescription lenses, which they do support, be sure to factor that into the price (expect at least another $150). My review unit arrived with my prescription in place, and I often forgot I was wearing them.

Even in monochrome, in-lens displays are a premium feature, which accounts for a price tag that’s considerably more than, say, Meta’s recently launched $299 EssilorLuxottica smart glasses, which do feature a camera and speakers.

• Value: 3.5/5

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: Design

• Thin, light, and durable
• Premium materials
• Mostly look like regular glasses
• Comfortable
• Stem bulbs look a little odd but are mostly hidden

Even Realities G2 display smart glasses are easily the most normal-looking smart glasses I've ever seen or worn. The gray titanium-and-magnesium frames are thin, light, and quite stylish. Where many smart glasses are bulky, heavy, or uncomfortable (or look ridiculous), Even Realities G2 frames are as comfortable as my regular prescription glasses. Yes, the stems end in pill-shaped nodules that house sensors and the batteries, but those elements are mostly hidden behind the ears.

The glasses ship with extra stem covers for comfort and a larger set of nose pads, though I was fine with the default set. There’s also an included charging case.

I didn’t think they looked bad, though my wife, who noticed that, unlike standard glasses, the fronts of the G2 lenses are flat and reflective, called them weird. “They don’t have cameras," I added hopefully.

I asked her if she could see anything on the lens, meaning the display I was viewing. She said no, but still remained unmoved. Some people are never gonna love smart glasses of any stripe, even ones I think look almost like regular glasses.

• Design score: 4/5

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: Display

• Solid waveguide technology
• Low resolution but mostly fit for purpose
• Virtually large enough to be useful
• Plenty bright

Even Realities G2 glasses use micro-LEDs embedded in the frames and waveguide technology, which basically guides the 640 x 350 monochrome (day-glo green) imagery in front of both eyes. Remarkably, the embedded displays are almost imperceptible to the naked eye (even with content running on them).

With my prescription lenses, the single-floating-image effect is perfect. The bright green imagery looks like a monochrome, 15-inch display floating in front of my face. It sits slightly above my eyeline, meaning I could easily look below the display to see what’s in front of me or just slightly up to see the display. It’s not so high on the frame that if you’re looking at the display, someone will think you’re not looking at them.

Even in daylight, the 1,200 nit display is clear, sharp, and very viewable. There are settings to adjust the display brightness, and while the resolution sounds low, you don’t need much for what is essentially CRT-grade imagery.

• Display score: 4/5

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: Software and Performance

• There aren't a lot of features
• Main menu access takes practice
• Teleprompt is a highlight
• News feed is nice to have
• Translate could be useful if you remember to pre-set your language choices for the location
• Navigation purposely is missing a key feature
• No real access to smartphone features
• AI shows promise but has noted limited access

While you might imagine a certain level of complexity with smart glasses, Even Realities keeps it pretty simple. The Dashboard, which you raise with a double tap on one of the stem sensors (or on the optional ring), reminds me of one of those old 1990s personal assistant devices or even a slightly more informative digital clock. There’s a large time readout on the left, with smaller, dare I call them digital watch-like complication elements arrayed around it. At the top is the day and date. To the right is the battery life of the glasses and, if you have it, the R1 smart ring. On the bottom left is the local temperature, and to the right of that is the number of notifications. To the right is a large square news feed.

With another sensor tap, I can open the feed and swipe backwards on the sensor to scroll through it. One more tap opens a news item, which, yes, I can scroll through by swiping on the stem sensor. You can see why someone might want to opt for the R1 ring. Who wants to be touching and swiping near their ear all the time?

Double taps pull you back out of the news feed, all the way to the Dashboard.

One of the less obvious interactions is how you bring up the main menu. I must admit, it took me a while to get the hang of the tap-and-hold gesture to open it. Once you master that — assuming you do — you get just seven options:

• Notifications
• Conversate
• Teleprompt
• Translate
• Navigate
• Dashboard
• Silent Mode

You can swipe up or down to go through them and tap to open one. The gesture-based control system is so finicky that I often ended up in the wrong place, and there’s no confirmation; the system simply starts, for instance, “Coversate,” which is basically a speech-to-text note-taking app.

More interesting is Teleprompt, the one feature that could potentially be the reason someone invests in these glasses. As the name suggests, it puts a teleprompter that no one else can see in front of your face.

To test it, I imported some text into the app (it supports txt, Docx, and PDFs). The app lets you expand or contract the margins, which controls the length of each line you read, but it lacks a way to control the line spacing — a key teleprompter feature. On the glasses, the text appears in front of you, and voice recognition detects you saying each word. As a result, there’s no need to mess with speed or stop and start the text scroll. It’s all controlled by your voice. That’s pretty cool.

Unfortunately, you might look a little odd while using it. I took a picture of myself while reading a script and noticed that I was looking up instead of at the audience in front of me. The key to teleprompters is that they're usually projected over, say, a camera lens, so you are reading while looking directly into the camera. To use Even Realities G2 for this task, you have to look up just a little bit.

Navigate launches turn-by-turn directions, but you can’t do much until you put locations in the iPhone app’s navigation section. I added my home and office addresses and then used them to start navigating from my current location. The only two navigation options are walking or cycling. That's because Even Realities intentionally excluded driving directions, as they might be too distracting in a heads-up display. I disagree with their exclusion.

Glancing at monochrome, see-through, heads-up directions while driving should not be distracting, but I'm not going to argue with the safety concern. Still, I suggested to them that they think about enabling driving directions that can be reviewed before starting the trip and then use detection of the iPhone's Driving Mode to disable that feature as soon as you start driving.

As for what navigation looks like, there’s a small turn-by-turn map on the lower left, distance and time to destination on the upper right, time and a walking icon on the upper left, and next turn on the lower left. Another tap on the sensor shows the full map route, which is a bright green line on a dimmer green map with no labels. I'm not sure how useful that is.

The Translate feature works pretty well, although despite the onboard mics, it does not auto-detect languages. Instead, I had to choose the to-and-from-translation languages in the app. Then, when I played a Spanish-language video, I watched the live translation on screen. Basically, before you go to a different country, you’d want to pre-load the appropriate language settings.

Silent mode instantly turns the G2 frames into dumb glasses, silencing all notifications and ensuring the screen doesn’t turn on, which it can even when you tip your head up. To un-silence it, you put one finger on each sensor.

Of course, there is AI, in the form of Even AI, which I summoned by saying, “Hey Even”. It wasn't the best at listening and getting my requests right, and there are many, many things it cannot do. Even AI has no access to your phone at large, just the app and its relatively limited features.

I did have some success. For instance, when I asked about the latest news on tech companies, I got a nice summary that I could read on the display.

I struggled to get notifications working, though. I was unaware of texts, Slacks, and incoming emails – basically anything I really needed.

Things did not improve when I tried to get clever. I had this idea that I could have the shopping list in my iPhone Notes app float in front of me while I walked around the grocery store. Yet, when I asked Even AI to read my files from the Notes app, it told me it couldn’t access them, but I could access the App’s Quick List. So I tried to build a Quick List, but every time I tried, the glasses would state “Quick List saved” before I even gave it a list. Then it had a bug where it told me the “Command execution” failed. Not useful.

• Performance score: 3.5/5

Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses: Battery

• Small-ish battery on the glasses (to save the design)
• Sizable battery is included in charging case

Even Realities G2 smart glasses are equipped with a 192mAh battery rated to last two days. My first charge ran out after three days of intermittent use. The included charging case has a 2,000mAh battery for up to seven recharges.

Considering there’s no camera, I would expect a longer battery life, but I think Even Realities purposely sacrificed some battery capacity for its exceptionally svelte style.

• Battery score: 3.5/5

Should you buy the Even Realities Even G2 Smart Glasses?

Buy it if…

Don’t buy it if…

Also consider

How I tested the Even Realities G2 display smart glasses

I spent the last week or so wearing these glasses instead of my normal prescription eyewear. I tried all the features and sometimes used the smart ring to control them.

Read more about how we test.

• First reviewed September 2026

• We may have our first proper look at Meta's Project Phoenix
• The glimpse comes from inside the Horizon OS software
• An official launch is expected to happen sometime in 2027

We've known for a while now that Meta is working on a new mixed reality (MR) headset, able to blend the real world and digital landscapes together, under the codename Project Phoenix — and the first images of the device just leaked out.

The leak comes courtesy of UploadVR (via Engadget), and the pictures were apparently hidden away in the latest version of the Horizon OS software for the Meta Quest devices. They're part of the support section of the software, showing how prescription lenses can be fitted inside the Project Phoenix headset.

You can see from the image (embedded below) that the line between headsets and smart glasses is blurring here. In terms of size and shape these look more like specs than something along the lines of the Meta Quest 3S.

Nevertheless, the device has cameras on the front for 'seeing' rather than transparent lenses, so it's technically very much a 'headset'. Perhaps we'll need to come up with another word for this product category, or maybe Meta will do it for us.

Coming soon

Besides the design, the images don't reveal a whole lot about Project Phoenix, except how you put prescription lenses in and scan a QR code — presumably to get them configured properly so you're able to see the outside world properly.

However, we do see a cable running down from the device, backing up previous rumors that there will be a connected component somewhere else, holding the battery and possibly some of the processing power.

That's what makes the Project Phoenix headset so thin and light, and it's something we've seen on other hardware like this, including the Apple Vision Pro. A battery especially takes up a lot of space and adds a lot of weight, so it makes sense to have it somewhere else (though it's not clear exactly how you'll keep it attached to your person).

With a 2027 launch date previously predicted by those in the know, all eyes will now be on the Meta Connect event that gets underway on Wednesday, September 23. Meta is going to be announcing updates on a lot of its products, and maybe on this MR headset too.

• Microsoft has rolled out a Windows 11 preview update to fix multiple Bluetooth bugs
• There are nine individual fixes listed in the patch notes, one of which addresses connection and disconnection speed issues
• More Bluetooth improvements should arrive as Microsoft works to improve Windows 11's driver quality

Bluetooth on Windows 11 is finally getting the attention it needs, after years of major connection and user interface bugs.

As reported by Windows Latest, Microsoft is rolling out major Bluetooth fixes for Windows 11, starting with update 26200.9359 for testers via its preview channel. Windows Latest notes that this includes nine notable fixes, particularly to iron out connectivity bugs.

One fix is designed to "correctly reflect" when a Bluetooth device is connected or disconnected — one of the biggest issues I've noticed is that disconnecting a device (a very slow process) effectively prevents you from connecting to another right away, and when you try, Bluetooth completely malfunctions — so it's promising to see it tackled.

Audio calls have also been addressed in the preview update, with a new Windows volume popup, which appears when adjusting the volume of a "Bluetooth Classic Audio" accessory. Microsoft also claims that "reliability and performance" with LE (Low Energy) Audio accessories have been improved.

The common stuttering and random device disconnections have been reduced, which should go a long way in improving game controller stability on the likes of the PlayStation DualSense wireless controller.

Of course, all Bluetooth bugs can't be fixed in a single update, but as Windows Latest notes, Microsoft previously stated that Windows 11's driver quality would receive improvements in the long run, which should ultimately make Bluetooth and other Windows functions more reliable.

However, I am pessimistic that these long-running Bluetooth issues are actually being eliminated. This isn't the first time Microsoft has rolled out a patch that addresses issues with Bluetooth functionality, and the same bugs have persisted through multiple Windows 11 updates.

Aspects such as failing connectivity with devices and other system-breaking bugs make Windows 11 a frustrating operating system to use, especially for gamers, notably when SteamOS and Bazzite (a SteamOS clone) aren't as buggy despite some compatibility problems.

The good thing is Microsoft isn't ignoring the issues that plague Windows 11, and if it can continue to work towards patching out the persistent bugs, it'll ease the frustrations among multiple Windows 11 users.

The internet is littered with hundreds of parental control apps that claim to give you complete visibility into your child’s online activities. However, in doing so, many of these apps invade your children’s private space and blur the lines into surveillance.

This is where HeyPolo stands out. Launched by the team behind Surfshark VPN, HeyPolo is a separate product that takes a consent-based approach to location sharing. It allows you to see the approximate or real-time location of your loved ones at any point.

The best part is that users can control who they share their information with, what information they share, and for how long. HeyPolo also says it will never sell, monetize or exploit users' location data, with location data encrypted while in transit.

If you’re looking for a lightweight, easy-to-use, and inclusive location-tracking application, HeyPolo might just be the right pick. Read on as we explore its various features and pricing, and compare it with the best parental control apps so that you can make an informed decision.

HeyPolo review: Plans and pricing

HeyPolo offers one of the simplest parental control pricing plans we've seen. The monthly plan costs $5.99/month, while the annual one is just $1.99/month. The only difference between the two plans is the duration of the subscription. Everything else is the same, meaning both plans come with everything HeyPolo has to offer.

One good thing is that a single plan covers your entire family, with unlimited devices and no per-person pricing. Exactly what Surfshark VPN is known for, too. You also get a 30-day money-back guarantee, which means that if you don't like how HeyPolo works, you can get a refund.

Next, although HeyPolo’s website says that it doesn't offer any free trial, that's not entirely true. Sure, if you purchase through the website, you don't get a free trial. But if you download the app on your iOS or Android device and purchase a subscription through the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, you do get the option of a 3-day or 7-day free trial.

HeyPolo review: Features

First up, there’s real-time location sharing, where you can view your contacts’ location details, which are updated every five seconds. Users can choose whether to share their exact location or a general area, giving them better privacy control.

Location sharing can either be left on indefinitely or for a specific time period. Users can also set arrival and departure alerts for specific places, such as school, work, or home.

There’s also an SOS emergency alert, where any family member can send an instant SOS alert that notifies the recipient of their real-time location. This could come in handy for elderly people living alone, children travelling solo at night, a car breakdown, or any other emergency situation.

You can also set up low-battery alerts, alongside location and emergency alerts, so you can know when a family member's phone is running low on power.

Similarly, there’s group location sharing, which allows users to share their location with several people at once within specific groups or circles.

What stands out is that while most location-sharing apps only allow the person who created the group to control it, HeyPolo gives every member a certain degree of control over what they share. Each plan comes with unlimited groups, and everyone can join for free. One person can belong to multiple groups simultaneously, each with different sharing settings.

You can choose between three different levels of location sharing: Exact Location, which shows your live location; General Area, which shows the neighborhood you're in; and Private Mode, which turns off location sharing completely. You can also choose to share your location for a one-time period or during repeating periods, rather than having it constantly enabled.

So, you’ll get a notification every time your child reaches school or leaves it. The same goes for workplaces too. You can also share trips with people in your group. This shows where you travelled, when you travelled, your route on a map, and the length of the trip.

Lastly, HeyPolo saves detailed location history, allowing you to check where you or any member of your group has been, including past routes. However, this history is stored for only seven days, after which it is automatically deleted.

HeyPolo review: Interface and in-use

HeyPolo is very easy to install. Simply download the application from the Google Play Store or iOS App Store, and you’re good to go. You only need to set up a profile, purchase a subscription, and then invite the family members or friends whose locations you want to track.

People can be invited either by sharing a link or using the short code displayed on the screen. Note that only one person in the group needs an active subscription; everyone else can join for free.

An important caveat worth mentioning is that you won’t be able to move ahead with the app until you opt for a free trial or purchase a subscription, which means there is no demo mode offered by HeyPolo.

However, once you’re inside, you’ll see an interface with a live map showing everyone in your group as icons. Each icon is labelled with a status such as “Active”, “Arrived Home”, “In Private Mode”, or “Left Work”. People who are on the move will have a tag such as “On the Move (47 mph)”, showing their current speed.

We also like how the reviews for the HeyPolo apps have been overwhelmingly positive. The app is rated 4.35 stars on Google Play and a whopping 4.9 on the App Store. Most users describe the setup as uncomplicated, and the application itself is minimal and low-clutter, which is consistent with HeyPolo’s positioning as a lightweight, consent-first alternative to surveillance-heavy family trackers.

HeyPolo review: Support

HeyPolo has one of the fastest support services we've seen across the industry. There are two ways to reach customer support: email and live chat.

We tried out the live chat function by clicking on the small chat icon at the bottom right of the screen. To our surprise, it wasn’t an automated AI chatbot where you have to fight through several menus before getting an answer.

A live human agent was there to help us almost immediately, and resolving any queries was as easy as typing them out and asking whatever we needed. Overall, the chat was very swift, and we got straightforward, to-the-point answers to our questions.

Just keep in mind that live chat support is available from 9am to 5pm CDT. But there’s a good collection of FAQs, blogs, and articles on the website should you need help with common queries outside these hours.

HeyPolo review: The competition

HeyPolo is very good at what it does – tracking the real-time location of your family members. However, it's pretty limited in functionality and does not extend to other parental control features. If that’s what you’re looking for, here are a few alternatives you can consider.

mSpy is one of the best keyloggers in the industry, offering extensive insights into your child’s device and allowing you to see every word they type on their devices.

It also comes with robust location tracking, just like HeyPolo. You can monitor various social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and even TikTok, and block certain apps on your child’s phone that you do not approve of. There’s also a screen-recording function that captures the child’s phone activity at set intervals.

That said, mSpy is a bit intrusive and does not follow the same consent philosophy as HeyPolo. Not to mention, it can also be pretty expensive, costing $11.19 per month on the annual plan.

Life360 is perhaps the closest substitute to HeyPolo, offering similar location-sharing features. However, it comes with better ancillary features than HeyPolo, such as 24/7 roadside assistance, crash detection, emergency dispatch, and free towing for up to 50 miles.

You also get $1 million in reimbursement for stolen funds, medical assistance, stolen phone protection, and more, depending on the plan you choose.

Life360 also offers a 7-day free trial, allowing you to check out the application and see if it suits your needs. That said, it's again a bit expensive, with its Silver plan priced at $9.99 per month.

HeyPolo review: Final verdict

HeyPolo is a straightforward, no-nonsense location-tracking application that helps you know the exact location of your loved ones at any moment.

It's ideal for families that believe in complete transparency. HeyPolo allows members to choose what data they share, with whom, and for how long, giving them greater control over their privacy. Users can see real-time locations updated every five seconds, as well as location history going back up to seven days.

You also get a 3-day or 7-day free trial when you purchase a subscription on the mobile apps. Along with this, the subscription is very affordable, at just $1.99/month.

That said, HeyPolo isn’t a full-fledged child monitoring app and is limited to location tracking. If you need other features like social media tracking or screen-time management, mSpy can be a good alternative.

• We've also featured the best parental control software

If you’re looking for a comprehensive online security suite for your family that also includes parental controls, Bitdefender is one of the best options right now. It's a well-known security provider offering an award-winning antivirus program, along with a password manager, VPN, and identity theft protection.

But does its parental control offering, which is bundled with its Family plans and not available via a standalone subscription or even a dedicated app, compete against the best parental control apps?

Read on as we dissect the various parental control features it offers, what they cost, how easy the dashboard is to use every day, and what the top competitors offer.

Bitdefender parental control review: Plans and pricing

Bitdefender no longer offers its parental control features as a standalone subscription. You’d have to get one of its four family plans. But note that its entire suite of parental control features is available with each of these four plans.

The Total Security Family plan starts at $79.99 for the first year and covers up to 25 devices across five family members. At this price, the cost boils down to around $16 per member per year, which is more affordable than many other parental control applications. Not to forget that, for the price, you also get 24/7 real-time antivirus protection for up to 25 devices, as well as a password manager.

Next is the Premium Security Plan, which costs $99.99 for the first year and also comes with scam protection, AI-based scam protection, and a VPN with 4,000+ servers in 50+ countries. The Ultimate Security Family Plan and the Ultimate Security Plus Family Plan cost $119.99 and $199.99 for the first year, respectively.

The former comes with dark web monitoring and identity theft protection features such as an identity protection score and real-time breach notifications, while the latter also includes $2 million in identity theft insurance, three-bureau credit monitoring, and other bank, credit card, and investment alerts.

Bitdefender parental control review: Features

One of the standout Bitdefender parental control features is the ability to set screen-time schedules for your children, who would only be able to access their devices during the allowed time intervals.

Along with this, Bitdefender also offers several preset routines: Focus Time, Family Time, and Bedtime, which you can customize as per your child’s daily activity and schedule.

There’s also a pretty handy internet time management feature, which allows you to control how much time your child spends on the internet during a day. A nice addition is the ability to reward extra screen time for your children for responsible online use.

In addition to internet scheduling, parents can also choose to cut off internet access directly on their child’s device using Bitdefender’s Stop Internet feature.

Bitdefender also offers predefined age-appropriate filtering categories to help you filter out inappropriate content such as porn, betting, or online gaming for your children. As with screen time, you can also fine-tune these filters to better suit your child’s day-to-day use.

Apart from category-level filtering, parents can also allowlist or blocklist specific URLs individually, in case you want to go beyond the category selection.

Parents can set up to five child profiles, each with the child’s name, photo, and birth date. Bitdefender automatically applies age-appropriate filtering as soon as the profile is created, which parents can then edit as per their needs.

Along with this, there’s also location tracking, which helps you know where your child is on an interactive map at all times.

Lastly, there’s Safe Search, which lets you remove explicit and harmful results from search engines, as well as YouTube restrictions, which ensure your child only views age-appropriate videos on the platform.

However, note that content filtering and safe browsing require an active VPN connection to function, as per Bitdefender’s listing on the Google Play Store.

Bitdefender parental control review: Interface and in-use

Bitdefender parental control works across Android, Windows, iOS, and macOS. That said, Windows and Android get full, unrestricted enforcement of every feature, whereas macOS and iOS are noticeably more limited, largely due to Apple’s own platform restrictions.

For instance, iOS content filtering runs through Apple’s Screen Time and not Bitdefender’s own engine. Parents have to create a child account through Apple ID, then Bitdefender’s app hooks into Apple’s Screen Time restrictions rather than doing its own independent content filtering.

However, the setup is pretty simple. You just have to download the app on your child’s own device. Unlike other parental control applications, you can’t download the app on your child’s phone remotely – you’ll need physical access to the device to do so.

One thing worth noticing is that, after the 2025 overhaul, parental control is no longer configured within the Bitdefender Central mobile app, but from the Bitdefender Central web dashboard, which can still be accessed through the mobile application.

Once you’re on this dashboard, day-to-day use is genuinely easy. Bitdefender’s Activity Dashboard is filled with several graphs and charts, which allow you to check your child’s phone activity at just a glance.

For example, there’s a bar chart showing their daily internet time over the past few days, as well as a pie chart showing their current day’s internet usage along with their remaining time. The dashboard also gives parents visibility into what’s actually being blocked and when.

The Prevented Content Access panel is a running log of every link blocked on the child’s device over the past 7 or 30 days. This allows you to see whether your filtering settings are actually able to catch anything, or whether your child is repeatedly trying to search for restricted websites on their device.

Bitdefender parental control review: Support

Bitdefender offers one of the most extensive support options we’ve seen across the industry. For starters, there are hundreds of articles, blogs, and how-to explainers on its website, neatly categorized based on different products.

If that doesn’t solve your problem, you can contact Bitdefender support using 24/7 live chat, phone, or email. However, to do so, you’ll first have to go through a few selections, such as the exact help you need, the type of issue you’re facing, and the product you need help with.

The support section features various phone numbers for different regions. The email support requires you to enter your own email address along with the problem you’re facing and doesn’t hand out direct email addresses to the consumer.

Beyond all this, Bitdefender also has an active expert community where you can get answers and solutions from other users across the world. Overall, Bitdefender’s support infrastructure is pretty solid, and you’ll never be left wanting for answers.

Bitdefender parental control review: The competition

Bitdefender is billed as a complete security suite and not a standalone parental control app, which is why it does lack a few advanced, dedicated parental control features.

For instance, Parentaler offers social media monitoring, allowing you to view your child’s WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, Facebook, Snapchat, and TikTok accounts, and see what they’re posting or with whom they’re chatting.

There’s also text and call monitoring with Parentaler, allowing you to read your child’s incoming and outgoing texts, including deleted messages. We also like its keyword alert function, where you can get instant notifications if your child uses certain controversial words or slang in their conversations.

Another notable feature missing from Bitdefender is geofencing. While it allows you to check your child’s location, it doesn’t offer alerts based on allowed or restricted zones on a map.

If you’re looking for a more comprehensive all-in-one package, Aura is another strong option. It combines parental controls with identity protection, antivirus, VPN, and a password manager, making it more of a complete digital security solution than a standalone parental control app.

If you still need a standalone parental control app but need something more affordable, try Google Family Link, which is entirely free to use and offers comparable features such as screen-time management and content filtering.

Or, you could try FamilyTime, starting at just $2.41 per single device per month. In addition to screen-time scheduling and internet schedules, you can also block apps or games on a child’s device that you don’t approve of.

It also comes with an SOS panic button that your child can use during an emergency. It’s also a great choice for households with several children, thanks to its affordable family plans that can cover up to five devices.

Bitdefender parental control review: Final verdict

Bitdefender’s family packages are ideal for parents looking for all-round security protection for their children rather than a dedicated, comprehensive parental control app.

But there’s still lots to like. You get robust screen-time management and internet-time management features, along with predefined age-appropriate filtering categories and location tracking. That’s all in combination with an antivirus with real-time protection, a password manager, an unlimited VPN, and identity theft protection, depending on the plan you choose.

The pricing is pretty affordable too, with the monthly cost working out to around $1.33 per member on the entry-level plan. However, if you’re looking for more advanced features, such as social media monitoring, keyword alerts, or geofencing, options like Parentaler or mSpy are more suitable.

• We've also featured the best parental control software

Parental control applications help you keep tabs on and manage screen time for your children effectively. However, the market is flooded with thousands of applications, and picking the best parental control app for your specific needs can be quite a challenge.

This is why we’ve dug deep and conducted a comprehensive review of Parentaler – one of the most popular child monitoring applications today.

Along with extensive social media monitoring, the application allows parents to monitor their child’s texts across various platforms, track their location using GPS, and filter the kind of content they can view online.

But is Parentaler the right choice for your? Read on as we analyze its best features, pricing, and user experience, while also comparing it with the best in the industry.

Parentaler review: Plans and pricing

We’re not a fan of how Parentaler’s pricing isn’t prominently displayed on its website. You’ll have to answer a series of questions before you can find out how much it costs.

We’ve done some digging to find out that its monthly plan costs $42.69, whereas the quarterly plan comes at $24.40 per month. However, its most affordable plan is the annual package, costing $10.17 per month, billed annually at $121.99.

The good thing is that there aren’t any plans to choose from, other than the subscription length. All the three packages offer the same set of features, which is everything Parentaler has to offer. This is the kind of simplicity we also lauded in HeyPolo – Surfshark VPN’s own parental control app.

What we also didn’t quite like about Parentaler is that it doesn’t offer a free trial or even a demo, which means you’ll have to buy a plan to see how it works for you. That said, the company does provide a 14-day refund policy, so if the app doesn’t meet your expectations, you can claim a full refund.

Parentaler review: Features

Parentaler offers three main categories of functions with its child monitoring app: text and call monitoring, location monitoring, and content filtering. Let’s dive into each of them.

Parentaler allows you to monitor various platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Telegram, Viber, Kik, and TikTok. Parents can also view messages their child sends and receives, calls made, links shared, and any media they might have sent or received.

Besides this, Parentaler also lets you keep an eye on the kind of content your children are sharing on a particular social media platform, say Instagram or TikTok, and this includes keeping you aware of their posts, stories, and more.

Its SMS and text monitoring is also pretty robust and works with iMessage on iPhone, allowing you to see both incoming and outgoing texts, including deleted messages. Of course, you can also monitor call logs on both platforms, including a list of contacts.

Text monitoring also covers all major social media platforms. One caveat worth noting is that instant-message tracking, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber, and Skype, along with Gmail and Wi-Fi network monitoring only works on Android if it’s rooted. That’s a bit of a bummer, in our opinion.

Next up is its GPS tracking technology, which allows you to check your child’s location right from the app’s dashboard on your device. You can even view detailed information such as the address, timestamps, and coordinates.

Parents can also mark allowed and restricted zones on a map directly from the Parentaler app and get instant alerts if their child enters or leaves these geofenced areas. You can also set screen-time limits with Parentaler, designating time limits for certain apps such as social media or games.

On the flip side, you can also schedule downtime, during which your child can only use certain apps. For instance, you can set up downtime during school hours where only learning apps might be accessible to your kids.

Along with this, there’s a dedicated Focus Mode on Android, which can pause distracting apps at preset times. You can also view detailed time reports to see where your child is spending most of their time.

Parentaler also offers handy content-filtering options, allowing you to block content relating to specific topics such as adult websites, social media, or any other objectionable content you don’t want your child to access.

The app allows you to view your child’s detailed browser history, helping you understand the kind of content they’re viewing online.

Additionally, parents can set up various keyword alerts, which might include commonly used slang or objectionable words. If your child ends up using them in their conversations, you’ll be able to view the alerts on the application’s dashboard.

Parentaler review: Interface and in-use

Parentaler works for Android, iPhone, and iPad, all of which come with a central dashboard accessible from any device or browser.

Parentaler’s compatibility policy page says that you don’t need physical access to the iPhone device to install the application if you already have the iCloud credentials and two-factor authentication hasn’t been activated.

However, if two-factor authentication is enabled or iCloud backup is disabled, you’ll need physical access to install the app on the target device. With Android, you’ll compulsorily need physical access for app installation.

Once the application is up and running, you’re greeted with an intuitive dashboard that lays out everything from call logs, social media monitoring, text messages, web history, and your child’s location on a single page. You can access various settings from the same dashboard and fine-tune them according to your requirements.

Overall, the platform is indeed very easy to use, with no major quirks or learning curve. That is, once you’ve successfully gotten past the installation hurdle.

Parentaler review: Support

Parentaler’s support options were honestly disappointing. We could only locate a “Contact Us” form on its website, where you need to enter your name, email, question, and message, and then wait for a response from Parentaler’s team.

Noticeably, the company’s marketing copy says that a 24/7 live chat option is available in various languages. However, we couldn’t locate any live chat button while navigating through its website.

It might be possible that you get a live chat option after you’ve purchased a plan, but the lack of proper support before committing to a purchase could be a major drawback for some parents. There’s no phone or dedicated email support either.

Parentaler review: The competition

While Parentaler is a solid parental monitoring and parental control app, there are a few features it lacks.

For instance, mSpy offers features like an anti-installation alert, where if your child uninstalls the parental monitoring app, you’ll get an instant notification. mSpy also offers remote camera and microphone access, allowing you to micromanage your child’s phone usage.

That means mSpy is great for anyone who needs a higher degree of control over what their child uses their devices for. It’s also one of the few parental control apps to offer extensive keylogging features, allowing you to see every word typed on your child’s device.

Another major shortcoming with Parentaler is that it doesn’t offer family plans. Even its annual plan, which costs around $121.99 per year, covers only a single device. This means that if you have more than one child to cover, you’ll have to buy separate subscriptions, which can quickly become expensive.

In comparison, Bitdefender offers value-for-money family plans, which start at just $79.99 for the first year, covering five accounts and 25 devices. Along with parental control features such as content filtering, internet time limits, GPS location tracking, and activity reports, you also get extra online protection tools, such as an award-winning antivirus, password manager, VPN, and decent identity protection features.

Parentaler review: Final verdict

Overall, we found Parentaler to be a decent parental control app for monitoring your children. It covers all the major bases when it comes to features, along with comprehensive text and call monitoring across various social media apps. You can also view extensive call logs and contact details on your child’s phone.

Its GPS tracking is also pretty well done, allowing you to set predefined geofencing limits. There are robust content-filtering options, so parents can keep a check on what their child views online.

That said, Parentaler doesn’t offer any family plans. While its annual plan is very reasonable at $121.99, this can quickly become expensive for households with multiple children.

It also misses out on certain features, such as remote camera or microphone access. Additionally, it doesn’t offer great support options, with only a Contact Us form available on its website. If you’re looking for more affordable or multi-device plans, Bitdefender and Mobicip can be good alternatives.

• We've also featured the best parental control software

Whether it’s helping your kids improve their cyber hygiene, restricting internet access for discipline or productivity purposes, or simply keeping a watchful eye on their internet activities, a parental control app has become a much-needed defense against today’s worsening digital threat landscape.

FamilyTime is one such popular child monitoring application that gives you a granular view of the applications and websites your child visits and allows you to manage their screen time with active limits.

In this review, we’ve taken a deep dive into FamilyTime Premium’s best features, plans, user experience, and customer support to help you decide if it’s the right choice for you. Read till the end because we also compare it with some of the best in the business.

FamilyTime review: Plans and pricing

FamilyTime Premium offers a pretty straightforward pricing structure. There are three plans for you to choose from: My Family, My Family 3, and My Family 5. While the first plan covers only one device, the other two cover three and five devices, respectively.

The single-device plan costs $2.41 per month, billed at $29 annually. My Family 3 costs $4.08 per month, billed at $49 annually, while My Family 5 costs $5.75 per month, billed at $69 annually.

The good news is that there are no feature differences between the three plans – the only difference is the number of devices they cover. This means you get everything FamilyTime Premium has to offer, even with the basic $2.41 plan.

Before you commit to a paid plan, you can try FamilyTime Premium’s 3-day free trial, where you can test various features to see how they work.

However, note that the free trial isn’t particularly extensive and lacks certain features, especially social media monitoring on platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, and Signal. Similarly, you can’t read your child’s text messages or view their calls during the free trial.

That said, it’s still one of the most comprehensive free trials we’ve seen, even if it’s for a very limited time. That makes it worth trying if you’re considering FamilyTime and want to explore its features to understand whether it’s right for you.

FamilyTime review: Features

FamilyTime Premium offers a slew of features to help you manage your child’s screen time and phone usage. One of the best is its Balance feature, which gives parents a great degree of control over how much time their child spends on their device.

For starters, parents can define daily usage limits along with individual app limits. There’s also Screen Schedule, which lets you schedule limited screen time for your child during different parts of the day.

Next, the Scheduled Internet feature offers a finer level of control, letting you block internet access on your child’s device for a specific period. They’ll still be able to use non-internet apps.

What we liked the most, though, is its Time Bank function, which allows a child to carry forward their unused daily allowance. For instance, if you’ve allowed five hours of screen time during weekdays and your child uses their phone for only three hours on a particular day, they can carry the remaining two hours forward for later use.

Lastly, there’s Family Pause, which can immediately lock your child’s device in case of an emergency. In addition to extensive screen-time controls, FamilyTime also offers several safety features. For example, you can outright block apps or games that you don’t approve of on your child’s device, or block inappropriate and age-sensitive websites.

On the flip side, you can choose to allow your child to access only approved applications and games and enable search filters to block explicit websites, videos, and images.

There’s also a handy SOS Panic Button that your child can use during an emergency. When they activate it, parents receive an immediate SOS alert notifying them that their child needs help.

FamilyTime also offers a pretty nifty PickMeUp Request feature, which sends real-time reminders and lets you plan your child’s pickup on a day-to-day basis.

On top of this, FamilyTime offers several visibility features, giving you granular insights into your child’s phone activity. For instance, you can view all the contacts on your child’s device, read their text messages, and access their call logs.

Moreover, you can check the list of installed apps, view your child’s web history, and even monitor their social media activity on platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, and Signal.

Lastly, there are location-tracking features as well, which can help you locate all your family members on a live map at a glance. You can also define specific areas on the map and receive instant alerts whenever your child enters or leaves a designated zone.

FamilyTime review: Interface and in-use

FamilyTime works on both Android and iOS. Unlike some other apps that claim they can be installed remotely using iCloud credentials, FamilyTime Premium makes no such claim.

Parents will need physical access to their child’s device to download the FamilyTime Junior app, while installing the FamilyTime Dashboard app on their own device. Once that’s done, the two applications are linked by scanning a QR code.

On Android, parents will need to grant several permissions, such as overlay access and device administrator rights, and allow installations from unknown sources for all the application’s features to work.

Parents will also need to set a four-digit PIN during installation to prevent the child from removing or disabling the FamilyTime Junior app.

A good thing about the platform is that it gives children greater visibility into their own limits, allowing them to check their remaining screen time, send SOS alerts, review their Time Bank balance, and see which applications are blocked.

The dashboard itself is very intuitive and easy to use. The layout is clean and simple, and parents can quickly navigate through the various features with just a few clicks. You’ll also appreciate that the setup tutorial is very detailed. That said, the installation process won’t take more than a few minutes.

As with any child monitoring application, users might encounter occasional inconsistencies in FamilyTime’s performance, especially on iOS devices, which operate within a more closed ecosystem. That said, both applications generally work well and don’t come with a steep learning curve.

FamilyTime review: Support

FamilyTime Premium has done well when it comes to customer support. For starters, you can access 24/7 live chat through the website even before making a purchase. That lets you iron out any concerns or queries you might have. This was, in fact, one of our gripes with Parentaler, which didn’t offer live chat, at least not before purchasing a plan.

Once you’ve subscribed to a FamilyTime plan, you also get access to 24/7 Premium in-app live chat as well as 24/7 email support, which should be more than enough for most queries or issues you might have.

There’s also a rich collection of how-to articles and FAQs that provide answers to commonly asked questions. We also like that there’s a detailed collection of step-by-step installation guides and walkthrough articles covering various core functionalities of the platform.

FamilyTime review: The competition

mSpy offers more advanced features, such as keylogging, which helps you view every keystroke your child types on their device, including deleted messages and typed URLs. There’s also a keyword alerts function that can notify you whenever specific keywords are typed, which isn’t typically possible with a standard keylogger.

Furthermore, mSpy offers broader monitoring coverage across several social media platforms, including Snapchat, Tinder, Facebook Messenger, and Viber. There’s also AI chatbot monitoring, which lets you see what your child types into chatbots such as Gemini or ChatGPT.

That said, mSpy is pretty costly, starting at $11.67 per month per device on the annual plan. This can become very expensive very fast if you have a household with multiple children.

Qustodio is another strong alternative, particularly if you want a more traditional parental control app with extensive monitoring and filtering tools. It offers screen-time limits, app and website blocking, location tracking, and social media monitoring, while also supporting a wide range of platforms including Windows, Mac, Android, iOS, Chromebook, and Kindle.

If you'd like alternatives that, like FamilyTime, take a more inclusive approach, you can check out applications like Bark or HeyPolo.

Bark, for example, explicitly addresses children during setup to explain that the goal is safety, not spying. It also uses an AI alert system to flag genuine risks such as predators, cyberbullying, or self-harm, rather than handing parents a full transcript of everyday conversations for them to go through.

FamilyTime review: Final verdict

We’d recommend FamilyTime Premium for several very good reasons. For starters, it’s one of the most inexpensive parental control applications out there, with plans starting as low as $2.41 per month for a single device. Even its multi-device plans are pretty affordable, starting at just $4.08 per month.

Next, the platform offers a relatively transparent Junior app for your child’s device, where they can view their own screen time, check blocked apps, and send SOS alerts when needed. This is in stark contrast to the closed monitoring environment offered by apps such as mSpy.

You also get 30-day activity reports, location tracking and geofencing, social media monitoring, and a free trial with nearly all the available features. However, if you need even more features, such as keylogging, keyword alerts, or remote camera access, consider splurging on mSpy.

• We've also featured the best parental control software

Amongst all the hype over Apple’s first-ever foldable smartphone, the iPhone Duo, which was announced at the company’s ‘Surprise and Shine’ event, Apple (rather quietly) also revealed when Mac users can get the latest version of its desktop operating system, macOS 27 Golden Gate: September 14.

While pretty much all of the attention was focused on the foldable, the launch of macOS 27 is noteworthy for anyone with a modern Mac or MacBook, as this free upgrade brings some tasty new features, while also addressing some of the less popular changes that came with its predecessor, macOS 26 Tahoe.

If you have a compatible Mac, then you should be prompted to download and install macOS 27 Golden Gate once September 14 rolls around. However, if you have a Mac from before 2020 that doesn’t run on Apple Silicon (so any Intel-powered Macs), then you won’t be able to get the update.

For reference, here are all the Mac models that are compatible with macOS 27 Golden Gate:

• MacBook Air M1 or later
• MacBook Pro M1 or later
• MacBook Pro 13-inch M1 2020 or later
• MacBook Pro 14-inch M1 Pro 2021 or later
• MacBook Pro 16-inch M1 Pro 2021 or later
• MacBook Neo
• iMac M1 2020 or later
• Mac mini M1 2020 or later
• Mac Studio 2022 and later

Apple recently announced new M5 and M6-powered Mac mini and Mac Studio products, and they'll likely launch with macOS 27 preinstalled when they start shipping on September 22.

Fixing past mistakes

The main focus of macOS 27, as with Apple’s other operating updates such as iOS 27, and seemingly every piece of new software these days, is AI.

The upcoming macOS 27 upgrade paves the way for Siri AI integration – the long-awaited improvements to Apple’s virtual assistant that should make it more useful. When launched, Siri AI should be able to have two way conversations with you and execute multi-step tasks quickly and easily, which could make using your Mac a lot more convenient. It will be able to interact with apps such as Calendar to complete tasks such as creating events and reminders.

AI is also coming to macOS Spotlight to make finding things on your device better, and Visual Intelligence can be brought up to get information about what’s on your screen. Other AI features, such as Image Playground, are getting improvements as well.

If you’re not a fan of AI, then macOS 27 should still have plenty of reasons to download and install. One reason that will hopefully please a lot of people is that macOS 27 Golden Gate makes tweaks to some of macOS 26 Tahoe’s most controversial changes, especially when it comes to the polarizing Liquid Glass interface. The new macOS will allow you to adjust transparency effects to make using your device more comfortable, and during the beta testing process, it was one of the things our contributor Alex Blake was particularly thankful for. I’m sure he’s not the only one.

When Apple announced macOS 27 at WWDC 2026 earlier this year, it promised lots of performance improvements, especially when it comes to how responsive the operating system feels. This alone should make macOS 27 worth installing on September 14.

If you have an older Mac and feeling left out, make sure you check out our guide on the best Macs and MacBooks, which can help you find a new macOS 27-ready Mac that suits your needs and budget.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how software is designed, written and tested. Development teams can now use AI to generate code, produce test cases, identify likely defects and automate repetitive quality assurance (QA) tasks at a speed that would have seemed unrealistic only a few years ago.

That acceleration is valuable. But it also creates a new QA problem.

When the same class of technology is used both to create software and to decide whether that software is correct, organizations risk building a closed loop of confidence. An AI model may generate code based on a particular interpretation of a requirement, then generate tests based on the same interpretation. If the original assumption is wrong, both the code and the test can agree with each other while still failing the user.

AI, in other words, cannot be the sole judge of its own work.

This is not an argument against AI-assisted development. Errors, hallucinations and inconsistent outputs are expected features of a technology that is still maturing. The more important question is whether organizations have independent mechanisms capable of detecting those failures before they affect customers, employees or critical business processes.

Shared assumptions create shared blind spots

Traditional software assurance already recognizes the value of separation between development and testing. The people who build a system understand it deeply, but that familiarity can make it harder to challenge the assumptions on which it was built. Independent testers approach the same system from a different perspective, looking not only at what the software was intended to do but also at how it might fail.

The same principle applies to AI.

Models trained on similar data, prompted with the same requirements or operating within the same development environment may reproduce the same blind spots. A model generating a feature may overlook an ambiguous requirement, an unusual user journey or a device-specific edge case. A second model asked to test that feature may reinforce the omission rather than expose it.

This becomes particularly risky when AI-generated tests are treated as evidence of quality, simply because they run successfully. A passing test confirms only that the test’s conditions were met. It does not prove that those conditions were complete, independent or meaningful.

The result can be a technically consistent system that is practically wrong.

The most fundamental tension between generative AI and formal software assurance is repeatability. Modern AI coding agents are designed to generate and adapt. I.e. given an apparently identical objective, they may choose different steps, use different tools, interpret context differently and produce different code or tests.

This is not always because the system is learning during each run, it is also a consequence of probabilistic generation, changing context and evolving models. That variability can be highly useful when teams are exploring solutions, but it conflicts with the core discipline of QA. I.e. a controlled test must be capable of being re-run against the same version, in the same conditions, with defined expected results and evidence of a clear pass or failure.

Without that control, organizations may have AI activity rather than assurance, and outputs that look plausible, but cannot be reliably reproduced, measured, audited or defended.

Functional success is not user success

Many automated tests evaluate software through code-level signals. They check whether a service returns the expected response, whether a page contains a particular element, or whether a button can be located through an identifier or selector.

These checks are important, but they are not the same as validating the user experience. A test may confirm that a button exists even though it is hidden behind another element. It may verify that a field contains text without recognizing that the text is truncated, displayed in the wrong location or rendered in a way that makes it unreadable.

It may find a menu that is technically present but inaccessible on a smaller screen. It may confirm that a transaction completed while missing the fact that the confirmation shown to the user contains the wrong amount, account or status.

From the system’s perspective, the software may have behaved correctly. From the user’s perspective, it has failed.

This distinction matters because modern digital services increasingly depend on complex combinations of application code, browser behavior, operating systems, screen sizes, remote desktops, virtual environments and third-party components.

A change in any one of these layers can alter what appears on screen without necessarily causing a conventional functional test to fail. Testing must therefore examine not only what the underlying system reports, but what the user actually sees and can do.

Why visual validation matters

Visual user-interface validation provides an independent perspective because it tests the rendered outcome rather than relying solely on the application’s internal structure.

That independence is significant. Code-based tests often depend on knowledge of the system they are testing: object identifiers, document structures, accessibility labels, APIs or expected data responses. Visual validation can assess the final interface as presented to the user, including layout, positioning, content, state and usability across different environments.

Visual validation is not a separate phase of software assurance, nor a replacement for functional, integration, security, or performance testing. Instead, it applies across every assurance division wherever a user interface is designed, built, changed, or tested—from individual components and unit-level checks through integration, system testing, and user acceptance testing.

Functional testing confirms that an operation completed correctly; visual validation confirms that the result is displayed accurately, consistently, and remains usable. Reliable assurance requires both throughout the development lifecycle.

The need becomes more pronounced as AI generates a larger proportion of software changes. AI tools can produce code quickly, but speed increases the volume and frequency of change that quality teams must assess. Without an assurance layer focused on the rendered experience, defects can move through delivery pipelines faster than organizations can recognize them.

Visual validation acts as a check on the gap between technical execution and human experience.

Repeatability turns automation into evidence

AI is effective at generating ideas, scripts and possible test scenarios. Its outputs, however, can vary between runs. A model may interpret the same instruction differently depending on context, configuration or probabilistic variation. That flexibility can be useful during exploration, but it is not enough for formal assurance.

A test used to approve a software release must be repeatable. The same inputs should produce the same procedure, the same checkpoints and the same criteria for success or failure. Teams must be able to establish what was tested, when it was tested, which version of the application was involved and why the result was accepted.

AI is effective at generating ideas, scripts and possible test scenarios, but generative and agentic systems are not inherently deterministic controls. Their output can vary because of probabilistic generation, prompt and context changes, model updates, retrieval results and the decisions made as an agent selects tools and plans its next action. For software development, this flexibility can accelerate discovery. For formal assurance, it creates a material control problem.

A test used to approve a software release must be repeatable and auditable. The same application version, inputs and environment should produce the same defined procedure, checkpoints and success criteria, allowing teams to establish precisely what was tested, when it was tested, which version was involved and why the result was accepted.

Only then can passes and failures be measured over time, defects reproduced, and evidence relied upon in an audit or regulated setting.

This is the difference between using AI to accelerate test creation and allowing AI to become the test authority.

AI can help teams draft test cases, identify gaps and reduce the effort required to automate routine workflows. Once a test is adopted as part of an assurance process, however, it should become controlled, deterministic, traceable and auditable. Its expected results should be explicit. Changes should be reviewed. Failures should be reproducible. Evidence of passes and failures should be retained.

Without those controls, an organization may know that an AI system performed ‘some testing’ but be unable to demonstrate precisely what happened. That is a weak basis for operational confidence and an even weaker basis for accountability.

Regulated environments raise the stakes

The consequences of interface errors are not distributed evenly.

In a consumer application, a misaligned field or incorrect message may create frustration and lost revenue. In finance, healthcare, defense or government, a similar defect can influence a payment, clinical decision, operational instruction or public service. An interface that displays the wrong status, conceals a warning or presents outdated information can create consequences far beyond the screen itself.

Regulated organizations must also be able to explain and evidence their controls. It is not enough to claim that a system was tested. They may need to show that testing was consistent, that results were reviewed and that software behaved as expected in the environments where it was deployed.

AI-generated assurance that changes from one run to another makes that task harder. So does a testing strategy that concentrates on internal system responses while neglecting the final interface used by staff or customers.

Independent, repeatable visual validation can help provide a clearer chain of evidence. It shows not merely that an application returned the expected data, but that the right information appeared in the right place, in a usable form, at the point where a human decision or action was required.

This is particularly important when apparently minor presentation errors can alter behavior. A hidden warning, misplaced decimal point, incorrect unit or outdated status indicator may not prevent an application from functioning. It can still cause a user to take the wrong action.

In these environments, the interface is not simply a cosmetic layer. It is part of the operational control system.

Combining speed with control

The strongest approach is not to choose between AI and established quality disciplines. It is to assign each the role for which it is best suited.

AI can increase development speed, broaden test coverage and reduce the manual effort involved in producing automation. Independent validation can challenge the assumptions embedded in those outputs. Deterministic testing can convert useful AI-generated ideas into repeatable controls. Visual checks can confirm that technically successful software also works for the person in front of the screen.

This layered model allows organizations to benefit from AI without confusing productivity with proof.

It also recognizes that no single testing method can provide complete assurance. Code-level checks can confirm the behavior of individual components.

Integration tests can establish whether systems communicate correctly. Security testing can expose vulnerabilities. Performance testing can examine behavior under pressure. Visual validation, at all levels of UI development, can determine whether the final result remains accurate, accessible and usable.

The value comes from combining these methods, not asking one of them to stand in for all the others.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded in software delivery, assurance must become more independent rather than less. Organizations should assume that AI-generated software will sometimes be wrong, incomplete or unexpectedly inconsistent. The objective is not to eliminate every error at the point of creation. It is to make sure those errors are visible before they reach the user.

AI can help write the homework. It can even suggest how the homework should be checked. But the final mark must come from an assurance process that is independent, repeatable and accountable.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

• Windows 11's latest update has arrived
• The September update brings in the ability to move the taskbar
• There are also new options for resizing the Start menu, and a really useful tweak for Windows 11's search function

Windows 11's latest update has arrived, and it packs some important new features for the interface of the desktop OS.

Bleeping Computer flagged all the additions in the September 2026 update for Windows 11, and there are three major highlights, which I'll pick out here, before providing a general roundup of some of the other tweaks that Microsoft has brought in this month.

As ever, some of these features are being rolled out in a phased manner, so even if you do install the September update today, you may still have to wait a while for certain pieces of functionality to make their way over to your PC.

1. A movable taskbar

Thanks to the September update you'll finally be able to move Windows 11's taskbar away from the bottom of the screen, to the top instead, or the sides if you prefer (an option that people with an ultra-wide monitor often want to use, as it suits that aspect ratio much better).

This is an ability which has always been in Windows 10, but was dropped for Windows 11 because porting it over was a thornier issue than you might think (or so Microsoft told us).

Finally, however, Microsoft has got its act together and the taskbar can now be repositioned in Windows 11 – although I've a feeling this will be one of the features on a slower rollout. Hopefully I'll be wrong on that score and you'll get this ability promptly if you've been keenly awaiting it for the last five years.

It's also worth noting that there's another option introduced here which can make the taskbar smaller, so it takes up less screen real-estate on devices with small displays.

2. The Start menu can now be resized

Want a more compact Start menu? Your wish is Microsoft's command, as this choice has now been introduced to the Settings app for the Start menu. You can elect to have a standard (large) menu, or a small one, rather than leaving it at the default 'automatic' setting whereby Windows 11 chooses the size itself based on your device. The problem with leaving the OS to decide is that sometimes you get the bigger menu on a laptop screen, where it pretty much eats the whole desktop – and so in these scenarios you can now manually choose the more compact Start menu.

With options to remove sections of the Start menu coming on top of this, you can now trim this part of the interface down so it's truly minimal. This choice will be more important than the movable taskbar for many folks – myself included – and it's great to see it now being rolled out.

3. Windows 11 search improvements

Another notable boon with the September update is that there are a few changes for Windows 11's core search functionality, and the most important is a new option that lets you turn off web results in search.

When you're searching for a file on your local drive, those web results often get in the way, so it'll be a relief for many to be able to switch them off. As well as web results (which open in Edge, with searches in Bing, of course), you can also turn off Microsoft Store suggestions. Essentially this is a general decluttering of Windows 11 search which is long overdue, frankly.

Other features in Windows 11's September Update

There's a performance boost for File Explorer in that the Home page now loads faster, and switching between virtual desktops in Windows 11 is now snappier, too.

Microsoft has made some reliability tweaks as well, including ensuring that the app history information in Task Manager is correct, and also that interacting with the Display panel within Settings is now more stable.

Furthermore, Microsoft informs us that there are some design tweaks here: "This update introduces updated progress indicators across Windows, providing a more consistent and modern experience during startup, sign-in, restart, shutdown, and update installation."

It's also worth noting that the weird mouse bug that affected the preview version of this September update (the optional update released at the end of August) has been resolved.

There's a fair bit happening here, and as one Redditor put it: "What's left for the 26H2 [update] then?"

Well, not a great deal in truth, and if you've been following along with Microsoft's annual updates, you may recall that 26H2 is going to be a very minor upgrade that doesn't do a lot. Indeed, some folks are wondering why Microsoft didn't save these juicy new interface features for 26H2, given that it's out next month.

The reason is likely to be because Microsoft wants to ensure that 26H2 runs as smoothly as possible (with no bigger changes involved). Although to be fair, as noted, due to the rollout process, a lot of folks won't be getting the new Start menu options and taskbar repositioning until October (or possibly later) anyway.

For the past decade, quantum computing has been relegated to the horizon, a distant, theoretical challenge rather than an immediate operational imperative.

Breakthroughs have generated headlines, but without a firm deadline for when quantum computers could threaten today’s cryptographic standards, CISOs have had little incentive to make quantum readiness an immediate priority. IBM’s 2025 Quantum-Safe Readiness Index shows how much work remains, with the average organization scoring just 25 out of 100.

Yet, that window of preparation is contracting rapidly. This spring, Google warned that “quantum frontiers may be closer than they appear,” pointing to advances in hardware, error correction, and algorithms that are accelerating progress toward cryptographically-relevant quantum computers. Google has since set a 2029 target for completing its own migration to post-quantum cryptography (PQC).

Yet, that growing urgency still comes without a firm deadline. Unlike the fixed, binary deadline of Y2K from years ago, the quantum risk profile is nebulous; the exact threshold of peril remains undefined, even as the required remediation timeline spans several years.

Large enterprises need time to identify cryptographic dependencies, assess legacy infrastructure, coordinate vendors, and secure the budgets required for migration. Those decisions reach well beyond cryptography, affecting how the business plans, funds, and prioritizes risk. In fact, the availability of quantum computing capabilities will touch almost every aspect of companies around the globe.

Turn quantum risk into an enterprise-wide priority

Quantum readiness already has a prescribed technical solution. In 2024, NIST finalized its first set of PQC standards and encouraged organizations to begin transitioning as soon as possible. For some systems, migration may just involve a software update or configuration change. For others it may be much more complex. The challenge for a large enterprise is knowing where those changes need to happen.

A practical first step is to build a cryptographic bill of materials (CBOM), cataloging what cryptography is in use and where, which systems can be updated relatively easily, and where legacy infrastructure may require replacement or another mitigation strategy. This is an intensive effort, but there are software platforms that can help.

Next, organizations should prioritize systems based on the value of the data and how long it needs to remain protected. Financial records or customers’ customer personally identifiable information (PII), for example, may warrant greater urgency than an internal chat log with little long-term value.

Data longevity is especially important because adversaries are already collecting encrypted traffic in the expectation that future quantum computers will be able to read it, a practice known as "harvest now, decrypt later." For sensitive data, the attack may already have happened even though the business impact hasn't.

Data exposure is only one part of that assessment. Public key cryptography (PKC) also underpins authentication, including single sign-on and other mechanisms used to establish identity. If that cryptographic foundation can no longer be trusted, organizations face the risk of impersonation, with consequences for access to applications, infrastructure, and data.

Much of this work sits outside the CISO's direct control. Infrastructure, applications, data, and third-party relationships are often jointly owned across the business, and so are many of the budgets needed to address them. CISOs must make a business risk pitch that shows other leaders – the CIO, CTO, procurement, compliance, and executives – where the greatest risks are and what needs attention first.

Make crypto-agility part of the migration

Preparing for a post-quantum future also requires crypto-agility. Cryptographic standards will continue to evolve as new vulnerabilities emerge and algorithms change. Organizations need systems and platforms that can accommodate those changes without another costly, multi-year migration. That means buying and building in ways that can accommodate a future algorithm change through software rather than hardware rip-and-replace.

The UK's National Cyber Security Centre recommends building that flexibility into PQC migration plans and establishing criteria for retiring traditional algorithms, with the goal of removing sole dependence on traditional public-key cryptography. It also means rethinking how organizations budget for the transition.

Large enterprises often operate on annual budgets approved well in advance and adjusted only slightly throughout the year, but a post-quantum transition may require more flexibility as standards and threats evolve.

This principle should also influence procurement. SOC 2 compliance already requires organizations to scrutinize vendors' privacy policies, certifications, and access controls, but cryptographic dependencies can be another blind spot. Asking which standards a vendor supports, how cryptography can be updated, and what its PQC roadmap looks like can reduce the risk of buying infrastructure that becomes difficult or expensive to migrate later.

The quantum timeline starts with today’s budget

While a firm deadline for quantum readiness remains elusive, budget cycles offer a more disciplined, actionable framework for planning. Executing a multi-year migration requires sustained financial commitment over successive cycles; every passing budget period effectively compresses the available window for remediation.

Most CISOs already understand quantum risk. The challenge is moving quantum readiness from something planned for next quarter or next year into funded work. With only a limited number of budget cycles available for a multi-year migration, repeated delays quickly add up.

The priority is to turn that awareness into an inventory, clear business priorities, and a phased migration plan that can be funded over the coming budget cycles. By starting now, organizations have time to focus on the highest-risk systems and address legacy infrastructure before the timeline becomes critical.

We've featured the best web hosting services.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

For years, ambitious European technology founders heard the same advice: to build a global software business, you'd eventually need to move to Silicon Valley. The Bay Area had venture capital, experienced operators, and many of the world's largest technology companies.

Today, some of the world's fastest-growing AI companies are proving otherwise. Lovable, based in Stockholm, has just achieved a $13.3 billion valuation and reaches nearly two-thirds of employees of the Fortune 500. ElevenLabs, founded in London, achieved an $11 billion valuation in early 2026 and surpassed $500m ARR later in the year.

AI has rewritten the economics of building a company: foundation models, coding assistants and automation tools let small teams create, iterate and scale with far fewer people than previous generations needed. Success now hinges on attracting exceptional talent, not on being near Sand Hill Road.

That changes the question for Europe. It's no longer whether we have the talent or the capital to build globally significant technology companies. We do. It's whether that talent becomes founders, or stays employees.

Europe has the talent

London has become one of the leading hubs for frontier AI talent outside the United States, supported by organizations such as Google DeepMind, the Alan Turing Institute, and Imperial College London. The capital's King's Cross area has become a focal point for AI research, startups, investors and global technology companies.

Elsewhere, cities including Paris, Berlin and Munich continue to cultivate world-class engineers, researchers and product leaders. I have lived in the US before, but I chose to found my own company in London for exactly this reason: the talent I needed was already here.

The fight for future founders

The expansion of American AI companies into Europe underlines the strength of that talent pool. OpenAI and Anthropic have both expanded their London research and engineering operations, joining Google DeepMind and Microsoft AI in competing for the same engineers, researchers and product leaders that emerging startups need.

These companies can offer salaries, resources and career paths that no early-stage company can match, and for many skilled operators, joining one is the logical choice.

The cost is largely invisible. Every experienced operator who spends a career inside a global AI company instead of starting one is a company Europe never gets to build. The result is fewer breakthrough companies and fewer founders to inspire the next generation.

Operators make the best founders

Many of the strongest founders start out as operators. Before launching their own companies, they spend years learning how to build products, attract customers and scale organizations, developing judgement against real business problems.

I've seen this progression in practice. Before co-founding ElevenLabs, Piotr Dąbkowski worked alongside me at Tessian, a cybersecurity company, where he was building AI-powered products years before the current wave. The judgement he developed there as an operator helped shape what became one of Europe's most valuable AI companies.

In the AI era, successful founders are defined by more than technical expertise. They have commercial judgement and an instinct for seeking out problems that need solving. These qualities make them valuable employees today and position them to become successful founders tomorrow.

They're also exactly what I hire for. We look for traits over skills: people who seek out responsibility before anyone hands it to them, and who want to understand how the whole business works rather than just their corner of it. Technical skills matter, but those are the operators most likely to build something of their own one day, and they create enormous value long before they do.

Back them at the point of the leap

As technology becomes more accessible, entrepreneurial ambition becomes the scarce resource. So support for aspiring founders has to begin long before they start seeking venture capital. Many experienced operators already have the expertise, networks and market insight to build successful businesses. What they lack is the confidence, encouragement or early backing to leave a stable job.

At my own company, we've put money behind this belief. Anyone who has been with us for five years can make a single pitch and get $250k to go and build their own company, along with office space and the backing of people who've worked beside them for years.

There's no cap on how many founders we'll fund. It isn't a perk designed to wave people out the door. It's a recognition that the people best placed to back a first-time founder are the ones who've watched them work, and that when I left my last company to start this one, I had to pitch strangers instead. Programs like Entrepreneur First have shown the value of backing exceptional individuals before they even have a company. Europe needs more mechanisms like this, wherever they come from.

This is how ecosystems compound. Former PayPal employees, the so-called "PayPal Mafia", went on to found or help build companies including LinkedIn, Palantir and YouTube. Europe is beginning to generate its own founder networks, with former Skype employees founding companies such as Wise, Bolt and Starship Technologies. Back one generation of founders and they build the next.

Europe has the fundamentals in place: exceptional talent and a maturing investment ecosystem. The missing link is the pipeline from operator to founder, and today's scaleups are the ones who can build it. Every operator who takes the leap expands Europe's capacity for innovation and entrepreneurship, and makes the whole ecosystem more self-sustaining.

We've featured the best AI website builder.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit