But now, two years later, that description is starting to feel a little outdated, because Durov is back in hot water once again.

This week, Russia formally charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism and announced plans to place him on an international wanted list. According to Reuters, Russian authorities allege that Telegram has been used by Ukrainian intelligence services to coordinate attacks inside Russia and recruit individuals through channels and bots operating on the platform. Both Durov and Telegram deny any wrongdoing.

The allegations themselves are significant and raise a plethora of important questions – like how can messaging platforms be used for political purposes, who should control user activity and how much should activity be controlled at all? But perhaps the bigger here is what these allegations in particular reveal about Telegram’s place in the modern technology landscape.

��

From Messaging App To Digital Infrastructure

��

When Telegram launched in 2013, it was largely positioned as an alternative to WhatsApp and other messaging services. With a little more focus on group messaging and other special features, it was adopted by a fairly significant number of people, although it never got close to seriously competing with WhatsApp on a serious level.

As we previously reported, Telegram surpassed one billion monthly active users earlier this year. At that scale, it’s no longer just a place where people send messages. Now, it’s where news is consumed, communities are built, businesses operate and political movements communicate. Thus, quite different to WhatsApp.

According to a 2026 academic study, Telegram’s bot ecosystem alone supports everything from moderation and e-commerce to financial services and automated trading tools. Researchers described bots as a form of software infrastructure rather than simply platform features.��That evolution is important in this discussion, because infrastructure attracts a different level of scrutiny than apps do, and that’s kind of always been the case.

Governments may tolerate a messaging platform, but they tend to pay much closer attention to communications networks that influence politics, public opinion and national security. Especially in recent years…

��

Durov’s Balancing Act

��

One of the reasons Durov has become such a fascinating figure in tech is that he’s spent much of his career positioning himself as resistant to government control.

After leaving Russia in 2014 following disputes with authorities over his previous company VKontakte, Durov built Telegram around privacy, encryption and independence. According to AP News, he has repeatedly presented himself as a defender of free expression against state interference, and he’s done so pretty openly.

But, Telegram’s growth has (arguably) made that position harder to maintain.

As 91̽�� covered following Durov’s French arrest, Telegram has gradually introduced measures that would once have seemed unthinkable for a platform built on absolute privacy. The company expanded moderation efforts and introduced new reporting mechanisms for private chats, moves many observers interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate greater cooperation with regulators.

The result is an increasingly difficult balancing act. Governments want stronger oversight, while users often want more privacy. So, how can they make everybody happy?

Unsurprisingly, the answer isn’t simple, and Telegram appears stuck in the middle.

��

��

Why Governments Keep Coming Back To Telegram

��

What’s especially interesting about the latest case is that Russia isn’t actually the only government scrutinising the platform. Australia has also launched legal action against Telegram over alleged extremist content, while European regulators continue debating the responsibilities of large digital platforms. Telegram disputes the allegations and says it removes terrorist-related material when identified.

Meanwhile, researchers continue to study Telegram’s role in everything from political communication to misinformation networks and wartime information sharing. Studies examining the Russia-Ukraine conflict have described Telegram as a major battlefield for competing narratives, highlighting its influence far beyond private messaging.

That may explain why governments increasingly view Telegram as something more consequential than a social app.

��

Is This a Sign Of What Comes Next?

��

Sure, it would be easy to frame Russia’s latest move as just another chapter in a long-running dispute between the Kremlin and one of Russia’s most famous tech entrepreneurs.

But there may be a broader lesson for the tech industry, and Australia’s similar unhappiness with Telegram points to this too.

As platforms grow larger, they often evolve beyond their original purpose. Indeed, social networks become media companies, e-commerce platforms become logistics businesses and ride-hailing apps become transport infrastructure. It’s all part of the process, and in some ways, it’s just a result of natural growth. And at this point, it seems like Telegram may be going through a similar transformation.

The platform still delivers messages, but it also hosts political movements, distributes news, powers businesses, supports financial activity and increasingly sits at the centre of international disputes. Whether Russia’s allegations (as well as those raised by Australian authorities) ultimately lead anywhere remains to be seen, but what seems clearer is that Telegram’s importance now extends far beyond casual chat bubbles and group conversations.

The post Russia’s Latest Move Against Pavel Durov Shows That Telegram Is No Longer Just A Messaging App appeared first on 91̽��.

The Government says schools, colleges, mayors, local leaders and employers will work together to build technical education around the jobs available in each area. Digital technology and AI are some of the sectors that could be built into these new routes.

The plans are due to start rolling out from September 2028, that’d give students the chance to study English, maths and science as well as technical subjects connected to local industries.

��

What Will Students Actually Get To Do?

��

A student interested in AI or tech could study a vocational digital qualification with their usual academic subjects, visit local tech employers, work on projects set by businesses and spend time in a workplace.

The Government says this could give teenagers a better understanding of the jobs available in their area and the skills employers need before they decide on their next move at 16. The routes could also cover advanced manufacturing, clean energy, life sciences, construction, health and care and creative industries, depending on local jobs.

Burnham said, “For too long in this country, students have been told that you must take the academic path to do well and to be respected. The whole school system has been built around it and that has let down young people seeking technical qualifications.

“I want an education system based on parity between academic and technical which gives all young people a clear path in life. From today, Britain will value the hard hat every bit as much as the graduation cap.

“In a fundamental change to the education system, we will introduce new technical education pathways from 14 – prestigious routes that will give students the chance to combine the core academic subjects with the skills, technical knowledge and experience they need to get quality, well-paid jobs where they live. My message to young people is this – whether you choose construction, coding or classics, or maths, manufacturing or mechanics, you’ll get the skills you need and be given the respect you deserve.

“Fixing the youth unemployment crisis in Britain will require a major shake-up in how we do things – and that’s what this government will do. I want to ensure that our education system leaves no dead ends for our young people. The changes we’re announcing today will just be the start of our work to restore opportunity and hope across the country.”

��

Why Are Businesses Being Brought Into Schools?

��

Gary Watson, Managing Director of Stellanor, said students need to learn about the people and infrastructure behind the tech they use, saying, “If we’re serious about connecting young people with the industries of the future, data centres need to be part of the conversation. Every AI breakthrough making headlines runs on physical infrastructure, and that infrastructure needs people to build it, run it and keep it moving.

“Beyond the engineers running the facilities, there’s a whole ecosystem of construction, electrical, and logistics roles feeding the sector’s growth, along with local suppliers and businesses that benefit as these sites expand. These are skilled, local careers that most pupils never know exist. The earlier we introduce young people to the opportunities that exist in the sector through apprenticeships and real world experience, the better equipped the industry will be to close the skills gap and meet future demand.”

Faye Ellis, Principal Training Architect at Pluralsight, said businesses also need to help schools connect technical learning to actual employment.

“For decades, the message to young people has been that school followed by university is the most certain route to a successful career. Today’s announcement should change that perception – with in-demand skills like manufacturing and AI being introduced as subjects much earlier in schools, to build a pipeline of talent to be taken into the workplace.

“But the NEET crisis is about more than expanding access to training; it’s also about ensuring there are meaningful employment opportunities waiting at the end. Young people need to understand where vocational courses can take them, and training is far more effective when it’s connected to a real job opportunity or a specific employer.

“At the same time, businesses cannot expect the government and educators to solve the problem without them, particularly when employers are best placed to understand which skills are needed in the workplace. They should also work directly with schools and colleges to shape these vocational courses around real opportunities, including project-based experience or guaranteeing interviews to people who complete relevant training.

“Addressing the NEET crisis will take time, but the UK can still change its trajectory and Burnham’s early commitment is a positive first step if the right ingredients follow.”

��

Industry Leaders React To The News

��

Industry leaders have shared their different views on the government’s new plans. Here’s what they think…

��

Our Experts:

��

• Peter Pugh-Jones, EMEA Field CDO, Confluent
• Richard Anderton, Head of Education, Sync
• Andy Coussins, Executive Vice President, International, Epicor
• Alex Sarychkin, English Teacher, MyEdSpace
• Louis Provis, English Teacher, MyEdSpace
• Richard Thompson, CEO, ANS
• Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, Cybersecurity Researcher, Ethical Hacker, Founder, BNVD.org
• Harpal Singh, AI SEO & GEO Consultant, Fractional CMO, Founder, Blimpp
• Madhusudan Dora, Founder, Aptocoiner Analytics

��

Peter Pugh-Jones, EMEA Field CDO, Confluent

��

��

“The decision to put technical subjects on a more equal footing with traditional academic subjects in schools is a welcome development. It will give young people earlier exposure to skills such as AI and help businesses build the technically capable workforce they increasingly need.

“Giving students clearer routes to technical careers will help build a future workforce that’s equipped to use new tools to solve real-world problems. However, AI is only as effective as the data behind it, so young people will also need a strong understanding of how information is collected, managed and used responsibly.

“The decision marks a significant shift from focusing solely on the technology to actually investing in the young people who will make it successful. Over the past few years, many businesses have tried to run before they can walk, adopting AI without first putting the right data foundations and training in place to realise its full potential.

“This is a real opportunity for the UK to rip off the plaster and recognise that simply adopting AI isn’t enough. Building technical skills from the classroom onwards can help the workforce of the future avoid making that same mistake and prepare them to work alongside these technologies across almost every industry.”

��

Richard Anderton, Head of Education, Sync

��

��

“The ambition to strengthen digital and technology education is a welcome and important step. Making technology subjects compulsory can create lasting impact when it is supported by investment in skilled educators, reliable infrastructure and high-quality professional development.

“Technology’s value in education extends beyond devices and curriculum content. Its greatest impact comes when teachers have the confidence and capability to embed it purposefully in teaching and learning.

“Equitable access to technology for students is equally vital. Every pupil should benefit from high-quality technology, connectivity and learning opportunities to ensure they are able to gain the digital skills that they will need in their future workplace, regardless of their background. Digital literacy and AI literacy are key competencies that they will need to be confident with to thrive in their future roles.

“A successful approach will combine curriculum reform with investment in recruiting and retaining specialist teachers, planning a comprehensive digital strategy, creating well-equipped learning spaces, and providing ongoing training and support.

“When this approach is implemented effectively, schools are able to equip pupils with the knowledge, confidence and judgement to use technology critically, creatively and responsibly, to ensure they are prepared for an increasingly technology-driven world.”

��

��

Andy Coussins, Executive Vice President, International, Epicor

��

��

“The inclusion of technical subjects for young people, such as Manufacturing and AI, is certainly a positive step towards building the workforce the UK requires in the years ahead. Manufacturing has never been an industry that has been afforded the luxury of standing still, and with technologies like AI and robotics, the future of the industry is dependent on people who understand both the craft and the technology. Investing in young people’s manufacturing and AI skills is an investment in the future of UK manufacturing.

“The best employees still need to understand how products are made, how different materials behave, what ‘good’ looks like and, crucially, what to do when something goes wrong. Automated systems and robotics handle repetitive tasks efficiently, but they don’t remove the need for technical knowledge.

“Tomorrow’s workforce will need a blend of practical engineering skills, digital capability, and problem-solving. By equipping young people with both technical and manufacturing knowledge from an early stage, we are helping to build a stronger talent pipeline and strengthening the UK’s manufacturing sector for the long term.”

��

Alex Sarychkin, English Teacher, MyEdSpace

��

��

“It is encouraging to see serious attention being given to technical education from the age of 14. For too long, the system has treated academic routes as the default and left pupils who do not achieve five GCSE passes with far fewer credible options. Building stronger links between schools, employers, apprenticeships and work experience could help change that.

“However, we have been here before. The 14–19 Diploma, T Levels and other vocational reforms have all promised to give technical qualifications equal status, only to be reshaped or abandoned as governments and education policies change. There are already Level 2 functional skills qualifications equivalent to a grade 4 GCSE, but schools can be discouraged from offering them because of how they are treated in league tables.

“The ambition is welcome, but 2028 is very close. Unless the Government addresses the incentives that continue to favour academic education and commits to a stable, long-term system, this risks becoming another well-intentioned reform that never properly takes root.”

��

Louis Provis, English Teacher, MyEdSpace

��

��

“Giving students a broader range of options is a sensible and overdue step. The assumption that university should be the destination for everyone no longer reflects reality, and schools should be helping pupils follow the route that best suits them as individuals. Stronger links with local employers and industries could also open up valuable opportunities and support local economies.

“However, asking students to specialise from the age of 14 must be handled carefully. Choosing a narrow route too early can limit young people’s horizons at a point when their interests, abilities and ambitions are still developing.

“The other concern is how this will work in practice. Too often, when there is a wider problem in society, schools are expected to solve it without being given additional curriculum space, resources, training or planning time. If these technical subjects are to succeed, the Government should really get specialists to teach them, rather than our already stretched teachers. History shows that we should not be too optimistic about this.”

��

Richard Thompson, CEO, ANS

��

��

“The UK’s AI ambitions will be defined as much by the talent we develop as the technology we create, and strengthening technical education will help prepare young people for the jobs of the future, as such the announcement today is very welcome.

“But secondary school education is only the starting point. The real test is making sure those pathways lead to meaningful work experience, apprenticeships and long-term careers that equip young people with the skills employers are looking for.

“One thing we’ve learned through the ANS Academy is that talent is everywhere, but opportunity isn’t. That’s why strong links between education and industry across the UK will be essential if we’re going to close the digital skills gap without widening existing divides.

“Giving young people the chance to develop those skills, wherever they live and whatever route they choose into work, will be critical to ensuring AI delivers long-term economic growth across the UK.”

��

Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, Cybersecurity Researcher, Ethical Hacker, Founder, BNVD.org

��

��

“Making tech subjects compulsory from Year 10 is exactly the kind of structural change we need to close the cybersecurity skills gap, but the timing highlights a contradiction that cannot be ignored. You cannot mandate tech education while simultaneously defunding the infrastructure that delivers it. The cancellation of the tech department sends a signal to students that the government does not actually value the subject enough to invest in it.

“From where I sit running BNVD.org, I see hundreds of vulnerability disclosures submitted by self taught teenagers who hacked together skills because school never offered them a proper pipeline. Making tech compulsory fixes the access problem in theory, but without qualified teachers, updated equipment, and curriculum that goes beyond basic IT literacy, it risks becoming a box ticking exercise that leaves students no better prepared for real world cybersecurity or engineering challenges. The government has to match the mandate with money, otherwise the announcement reads like political theater rather than genuine reform.”

��

Harpal Singh, AI SEO & GEO Consultant, Fractional CMO, Founder, Blimpp

��

��

“Allowing instruction in technical skills at age 14 is the right approach. Digital skills and AI are becoming workplace literacy and are no longer thought of as advanced skills.

“However, this cannot be a course developed around the latest software just to fulfill requirements. Students may enter the job market with outdated skills. Schools need to foster critical thinking and teach data skills, digital citizenship, responsible use of AI, fact-checking, and how to solve real-world business challenges.

“The contradiction is impossible to ignore. Abolishing the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and simultaneously directing schools to teach more technical skills shows a lack of coherence in the Government’s approach to technology. You cannot teach more technical skills to children while simultaneously reducing the Government’s investment in technology.

“The outcome hinges on execution of training and the provision of technology both at school and at home, as well as employer investment and a curriculum that adapts to changing conditions. Without this investment, technical education runs the risk of becoming a poorly taught subject and increasing the divide between children taught digital skills at home and the children who rely on school to teach digital skills.”

��

Madhusudan Dora, Founder, Aptocoiner Analytics

��

��

“One recent implementation involved a client running a legacy ERP system (Compulink) that relied almost entirely on static PDF reports for operational and executive reporting. While the ERP contained valuable business data, employees had to search through numerous reports or depend on IT whenever new questions arose.

“Rather than connecting AI directly to the ERP database, we first built a modern analytics foundation using Microsoft Fabric. We centralized ERP data in OneLake, implemented a Medallion Architecture (Bronze, Silver, and Gold layers), created an optimized enterprise data warehouse, and designed a governed semantic model enriched with business definitions and AI-friendly metadata.

“The final step was enabling Microsoft Fabric Data Agents. Business users who previously depended on static reports can now ask natural-language questions such as “What were our sales last month?”, “Which customers generated the highest revenue?”, or “Which products are declining in sales?” and receive governed, context-aware answers within seconds.

“One of the biggest lessons from this project is that AI does not replace data engineering—it amplifies it. The quality of conversational analytics depends on the quality of the underlying data model. Organisations that invest in data governance, semantic modeling, and business context achieve far more accurate and trustworthy AI responses than those attempting to expose raw transactional databases directly to large language models.”

The post Experts React To The UK’s Decision To Make Tech Subjects Compulsory In Schools appeared first on 91̽��.

The company’s new Copilot experience brings together Microsoft Copilot chat, GitHub Copilot, Cowork collaboration tools and Autopilots, giving users access to different AI services from one interface.

Microsoft has not given the full information about how the new app will work, but the direction is becoming easier to see. Copilot is being built as a single destination where users can search, write, research, code, manage documents and handle longer tasks.

��

What Will Microsoft’s Copilot Super App Bring Together?

��

According to Softonic, Microsoft has confirmed it’ll be coming later this year. Within Microsoft, the project is reportedly known as “One Copilot”.

The concept brings Copilot products into one experience, so users could access Microsoft Copilot, GitHub Copilot, Cowork and Autopilots without having to keep switching between different Microsoft applications.

Microsoft’s own Copilot website already presents the service as a service that can handle many different tasks. Users can ask questions, search using their voice, create images, upload PDFs, Word documents and spreadsheets, generate podcasts, research topics and get help writing documents.

Copilot can also work across a user’s screen through Copilot Vision. Microsoft says Vision can look at what is on screen and respond with guidance in real time. On mobile, users can point their camera at something and ask Copilot to explain what they are seeing.

��

How Big Has Copilot Become?

��

Microsoft says it now has more than 30 million paid Microsoft 365 Copilot seats. The company also says weekly Copilot engagement is at the same level as Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Teams, while users are having nearly twice as many conversations per user.

The numbers give some context to Microsoft’s decision to bring its Copilot products together. The company already has people using Copilot for work, coding, research, writing and everyday tasks, giving it a large base for a single app.

��

��

Microsoft’s Copilot website also shows how many different jobs the service can handle. Smart mode can answer quick questions or spend more time on difficult requests, Copilot Voice works in more than 50 languages, and Deep Research can produce multi page reports.

Users can also ask Copilot to remember information, manage memories through settings and bring recent files, apps and chats back into view on Windows.

��

Could Copilot Become An Everyday App?

��

The super app concept could make Copilot easier to use because users would have one place for many AI tasks. Someone could use it for personal research in the morning, work documents during the day and coding later without opening separate Copilot products.

Microsoft is giving Copilot more ways to interact with information. Its visual responses can bring together images, videos and answer cards for subjects such as weather, sport, dining and currency. Users can upload their own files and ask Copilot to explain them.

The company has also introduced Copilot Pages for writing and refining content, image creation through Copilot Imagine and podcast generation. These features give the service a wider range of uses than a traditional chatbot.

The super app could become the main place users access Microsoft’s AI services, with different Copilot tools available through one interface.

��

What Does Microsoft Need To Explain?

��

Since this wasn’t an official launch announcement, there are still unanswered questions. Microsoft has not given pricing for the super app, a complete feature list or an explanation of how the existing standalone Copilot apps will work once One Copilot arrives.

Businesses also need more information about identity management, licensing, administrator controls, data access and security. Those details will matter for organisations that already use Microsoft 365 Copilot or GitHub Copilot across their teams.

Microsoft is competing in a really busy market, as Anthropic and OpenAI are also building AI products that bring different capabilities into fewer interfaces. Copilot’s advantage will come from how well Microsoft brings its existing services together and makes that experience useful for people at work and at home.

The post Microsoft Has Confirmed Copilot’s Super App Will Launch Soon – But What Is It For? appeared first on 91̽��.

, one of the world’s largest digital marketplaces, today announced the global launch of ‘Dave’, its proprietary autonomous customer support agent, which will be available to sellers operating on the platform, following a highly successful two-month trial period.

Although sellers ensure the high quality of their offerings, and remain autonomous in all their decisions, large-scale surges in customer support demand may occur during blockbuster video game releases such as GTA 6.��

Despite their best efforts, sellers may not be able to handle all these support requests within a short period of time. Dave was built specifically to help sellers manage such spikes and now operates 24/7 across 180 countries.����

Dave has streamlined seller’s operations and processes, managing roughly 10,000 conversations globally per week. Unlike traditional chatbots, Dave connects directly to the seller’s transaction history and enables instant verification of payment status and the seller’s policies, allowing issues to be resolved immediately. By relying on verified data rather than solely on generative text, the system avoids the risk of AI hallucinations and errors and effectively manages complex cases involving vouchers, game keys, software licenses, and refunds��processed by sellers.

In its first 63 days of full deployment, Dave achieved several key operational milestones:

• Ticket Reduction:Dave streamlined the handling of approximately 15,000 tickets, helping to resolve them quickly on behalf of sellers and reducing the overall volume of tickets requiring human support by 27–30%
• High-Precision Routing:Achieved 93.8% routing accuracy, instantly directing cases to the relevant third-party seller or, where they related specifically to the operation of the platform, to G2A.COM Support, in line with marketplace policies
• Strong User Acceptance:Dave AI received a satisfaction score of 4.16 out of 5. Additionally, 74% of users rated the automated process as easy or very easy
• Quality and Trust Metrics:Dave’s responses achieve an average quality score of 91.2%, with only 0.81% receiving negative in-chat feedback. Every response is automatically evaluated across 13 quality and safety dimensions

“As G2A.COM continues to expand globally, ensuring that sellers can provide the highest possible standard of customer support remains a key priority. Activity across the gaming ecosystem, including major game launches, can trigger sudden spikes in user inquiries within hours, making it inefficient to scale support simply by hiring more agents. Dave was created to deliver immediate, high-quality, multilingual assistance at scale. If a case requires full manual intervention by the seller, the seller and their support team receive a comprehensive analysis and summary of the case so users never have to repeat themselves.”

“Dave is also another step in building an AI-native organisation and environment. AI is no longer just a productivity tool or a competitive advantage. The real advantage comes from embedding AI into the core of how a company operates. Dave is a practical example of that approach, helping us and sellers using platform to scale globally while delivering faster and more trusted user experiences,” said Paweł Wróbel, CGO at G2A.COM.”

-This is a paid press release published via TechnologyNewswire-

The post G2A.COM’s Autonomous AI Agent Dave Helps Sellers Resolve 14,400 Support Tickets In 63 Days appeared first on 91̽��.

Why launch a healthcare technology at one of the world’s biggest graphics conferences?

The answer says a great deal about where artificial intelligence is heading. Xenco Medical introduced��XenVision, an AI-powered musculoskeletal intelligence platform that combines computer vision, biomechanics and clinical AI to analyse posture and movement in less than two minutes without requiring wearable sensors or reflective motion-capture markers.

The platform was developed using more than 700,000 real-world musculoskeletal assessment datasets, allowing it to identify subtle movement abnormalities that can precede musculoskeletal disorders.

��

Healthcare Is Becoming a Computer Vision Problem

��

For years, artificial intelligence in healthcare has largely focused on interpreting medical images, automating workflows or supporting administrative tasks. XenVision reflects a different trend. Instead of analysing X-rays or MRI scans, the platform analyses how people move. Using AI-driven pose estimation, geometric modeling and biomechanical analysis, XenVision reconstructs a digital representation of the body’s movement before translating it into clinically relevant measurements, including posture, joint motion, movement symmetry, range of motion and functional performance.

For founder and CEO��Jason Haider, launching at SIGGRAPH was a deliberate decision.

“The technologies shaping the future of healthcare are increasingly being developed outside traditional healthcare. Computer vision, spatial computing, machine learning and advanced graphics research are converging to create entirely new clinical capabilities. SIGGRAPH is where many of those foundational technologies are first introduced.”

��

AI Innovation Is Becoming Cross-Disciplinary

��

One of the more interesting aspects of XenVision is not simply what it does, but where its underlying technology originates. Many of the mathematical techniques powering modern healthcare AI, including pose estimation, geometric reconstruction and visual tracking were initially developed for applications such as animation, robotics, autonomous systems, gaming and augmented reality.

SIGGRAPH has long served as a showcase for those innovations before they migrate into commercial products across multiple industries. That crossover reflects a broader trend across the startup ecosystem: today’s category-defining companies increasingly combine expertise from multiple disciplines rather than innovating within a single industry.

Building AI Requires More Than Algorithms

��

One of the biggest competitive advantages in artificial intelligence is no longer access to models alone, it’s access to high-quality proprietary data. Haider says that principle guided XenVision’s development.

“The real differentiator in healthcare AI isn’t simply having sophisticated models. It’s having clinically meaningful data that allows those models to recognise patterns physicians actually care about. Building that foundation has been one of the most important parts of developing XenVision.”

Training the platform on more than 700,000 real-world assessments gives the system the ability to recognise subtle biomechanical changes that may be difficult to identify through observation alone.

��

From Reactive Care to Continuous Intelligence

��

Healthcare systems around the world continue shifting toward earlier intervention, preventive care and outcomes-based reimbursement. Technologies capable of continuously measuring functional health could become increasingly valuable as providers look for objective ways to monitor recovery and identify deterioration before symptoms become severe.

According to Haider, that’s the larger vision.

“We believe movement is becoming another measurable health signal. As AI continues to mature, objective functional assessment has the potential to become part of routine healthcare rather than something reserved for specialised laboratories.”

��

The Bigger Picture

��

Xenco Medical’s announcement may ultimately represent something larger than a new healthcare product. It demonstrates how artificial intelligence is dissolving traditional industry boundaries. The same computer vision technologies being refined for robotics, gaming, spatial computing and graphics are increasingly finding their way into healthcare, where they can help generate new forms of clinical intelligence.

For founders and technology investors, XenVision serves as another reminder that some of tomorrow’s biggest opportunities won’t emerge from isolated industries; they’ll emerge where disciplines intersect. As AI continues to evolve, the companies creating the greatest impact may be those capable of translating breakthroughs from one field into transformative applications in another.

The post Why One MedTech Company Chose a Computer Graphics Conference To Launch Its Next AI Platform appeared first on 91̽��.

The answer for a lot of business leaders comes down to where they believe growth begins. Revenue is often credited to the sales team that closes the deal, not the marketing work that built awareness and buying intent even before a customer was ready to buy something.

This thinking can be seen in The CEO Blind Spot, a new report from Propolis. Its survey of 150 UK CEOs and senior business leaders at B2B organisations with annual revenue above £20 million found that 75% do not believe marketing drives business growth, even though they recognise its value.

The report also says 84% see marketing as a support function, not a commercial growth function. Also 77% believe sales contributes more to growth than marketing, and 67% believe marketing has less accountability for business results than sales.

��

Where Does Marketing Lose Credit?

��

Propolis says many CEOs only see the final stage of a sale. The report calls this “ghost revenue”, where marketing has already spent months, or even years, building awareness, trust and customer interest before revenue finally arrives.

Once a sale is completed, credit often goes to the teams involved at the end of the process. According to the report, much of marketing’s commercial contribution stays out of sight, even though it helped create the conditions for the sale in the first place.

This way of thinking also influences spending decisions. Propolis says 81% of CEOs believe marketing budgets are harder to justify than sales budgets. A further 76% said they cannot justify marketing investment unless it generates leads.

Business leaders also place more value on activity that produces quicker results. The report says 79% want shorter sales funnels, 76% believe hard leads matter more than brand awareness, and 81% place more value on performance marketing than storytelling.

Richard O’Connor, CEO of Propolis, said, “Too many CEOs say they value B2B marketing, but our research suggests they still don’t value it as a commercial growth function. If you believe marketing matters but doesn’t drive growth, it’s difficult to argue you’re recognising its full contribution to the business.

��

��

“The challenge is that much of marketing’s commercial contribution happens long before revenue appears on a dashboard, making it far less visible than that of functions operating closer to the point of sale. As CEOs face growing pressure to deliver short term results while increasing investment in AI, there is a real risk that a critical engine of sustainable growth becomes an easy target for budget cuts unless this blind spot is addressed.”

��

Why Are Marketers Struggling?

��

The report says many CEOs are not questioning the importance of marketing. They want marketers to explain their work in commercial terms and connect it more closely to business performance.

Propolis says 88% of business leaders believe marketers would have more influence if they spoke the language of business. A further 83% said they would have more confidence in marketers who showed better commercial understanding, and 79% wanted marketers to spend less time talking about creativity and more time talking about results.

Marketing also has less involvement in business planning than many people might expect. Around 65% of business leaders said marketing is not involved throughout the full growth strategy process, and 76% said marketers are not included throughout revenue forecasting. According to Propolis, this makes it harder for marketing teams to prove commercial value because they are missing from many of the discussions where business decisions are made.

The report also says only 18% of B2B marketers believe they can consistently demonstrate business impact to senior leadership, showing a disconnect between what marketers believe they contribute and what CEOs believe they can prove.

��

What Would Help CEOs See Marketing Differently?

��

AI is also influencing how many businesses think about marketing. According to the report, 75% of business leaders have already reduced marketing investment or headcount because of AI, and 80% believe they can continue reducing marketing budgets without affecting business growth.

The report says those reductions reach much more than administrative work. Spending has also gone down across thought leadership, market research, customer relationship building, strategic marketing planning and brand building, all activities that help businesses understand customers and generate demand over longer periods.

There are signs that CEOs are open to a different way of thinking. Propolis says 87% agree the best marketing combines creativity, brand building and commercial impact.

When asked what is holding marketing back, business leaders most often mentioned alignment with sales, investment being directed towards innovation such as AI, marketing not being seen as a strategic priority, short term business priorities, difficulty proving return on investment and doubts about marketing’s commercial value.

According to Propolis, marketers can close the disconnect by bringing customer insight into leadership discussions, talking more about revenue and business performance, working together with sales more and showing commercial results throughout the year. If that happens, CEOs may begin to see marketing’s impact long before the sale and not only when there’s revenue…

The post 75% Of CEOs Don’t Think Marketing Drives Growth – What Are They Missing? appeared first on 91̽��.

OpenAI has kept most of its consumer hardware plans under wraps, although bits of information have started coming out through supply chain reports, interviews and product launches. Looking at each report on its own only gives a small bit of information. Reading them together gives a better understanding of what OpenAI is expected to have in development over the next few years.

There is also one product that is no longer a rumour, though. OpenAI has already released its first hardware product, although it is probably not what many people expected.

��

What Has OpenAI Already Released?

��

OpenAI’s first hardware product is called the Codex Micro, a compact keyboard made in partnership with keyboard company Work Louder. It costs $230 and is designed for software developers who use OpenAI’s Codex coding assistant.

The square keyboard has 12 programmable keys, a joystick, a rotating dial and colourful LED lighting. An illuminated ring lets users know what Codex is doing, such as working on a task or reporting an error. The dial adjusts how hard the AI works on a task, and the joystick can launch coding actions such as debugging or refactoring.

The device sold out in around 12 hours. According to Fortune, people began listing it on eBay within hours. One listing reached $1,850, although completed sales were generally lower, with many selling between $800 and $1,000 before later coming down to around $450.

Mike Di Genova, co founder of Work Louder, admitted he expected stock to last longer.

“I thought it was going to take at least a month to sell through the inventory. It was limited stock, but they purchased a lot.”

The Codex Micro is not meant for everyday consumers and Fortune reported that OpenAI developed it as a separate project from its consumer hardware, although it is giving the company useful feedback about how people interact with AI through physical devices.

��

What Devices Could Be Released Next?

��

The product receiving the most interest is a portable smart speaker being developed with former Apple designer Jony Ive.

According to MacRumors, the speaker will not have a screen. It is expected to use ChatGPT and voice interaction. Reports also claim it will have a rechargeable battery, cameras that understand its surroundings and mechanical elements that move, giving the device more personality than a traditional smart speaker.

OpenAI reportedly wants it to control smart home devices, answer requests, play music, respond to messages and become more personalised over time.

Sam Altman has already spoken enthusiastically about an early prototype, telling employees it was “the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen.”

MacRumors reported that the speaker could be released in early 2027 with a price between $200 and $300.

��

��

What Do We Know About The OpenAI Phone?

��

The smartphone rumours have become a lot more specific over recent months and MacRumors reported that supply chain analyst Ming Chi Kuo calls the device an “AI agent phone”. The device would constantly understand where the user is, what they are doing and what they need instead of depending too much on apps.

Reports claim the phone will use a customised MediaTek processor, advanced camera hardware and separate AI processors that can process vision and language tasks at the same time.

Kuo believes production could begin during the first half of 2027, with shipments across 2027 and 2028 reaching around 30 million units if development continues as expected.

��

What Else Could OpenAI Be Building?

��

Reports also mention smart glasses, smart earbuds and a smart lamp as possible products, although MacRumors reported these are well away and could change before reaching consumers.

OpenAI’s hardware plans have grown over a short period following its $6.5 billion acquisition of Jony Ive’s startup io Products. MacRumors also reported that more than 400 former Apple employees have joined OpenAI, bringing experience from hardware design teams across the company.

That recruitment also resulted in legal action. Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI on July 10 over alleged trade secret theft. OpenAI responded, saying it has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets.”

Voice interaction is also becoming a bigger priority across OpenAI’s hardware products. OpenAI co founder and president Greg Brockman explained why he believes speaking to computers could become more normal. He said, “Voice is the interface of the future because it means the computer moves closer to you rather than you having to contort yourself around the machine.”

He also said people may eventually look back on “clicking and typing” as “a phase.”

OpenAI has not publicly confirmed most of these products or their release dates. The reports from the past few weeks give a more complete understanding of what the company is expected to have in development. If they prove accurate, OpenAI could soon have a collection of hardware products covering far more than the smartphone that first caught everyone’s interest.

The post OpenAI Will Soon Release Its First Tech Gadgets – Here’s What To Expect appeared first on 91̽��.

The launch brings Musk back to the business that first made his name. X Money is rolling out to selected users in the United States and brings banking, payments and rewards into the same app people already use for social media.

Musk no longer has all that involvement with PayPal, but his history with the company gives the launch added context. The person who helped build one of the biggest online payment platforms now wants people to manage their money through X instead.

��

What Does X Money Have To Offer?

��

XX Money brings together services people would normally expect from a digital bank. Users can receive their salary through direct deposit, send money instantly to other X users, pay bills, transfer money, write electronic checks – even use a debit card.

��

��

The service also has an annual percentage yield of up to 6.00% for eligible users, 3% cashback on qualifying purchases and up to $10 million in FDIC insurance through its Cash Sweep Programme. According to X Money, the interest rate is more than ten times the United States national average.

Security features are available; passkeys, transaction controls, privacy settings, to name a few. Also, users can lock cards in the app, set spending controls and contact customer support through an in app chat service available around the clock.

��

Why Is Musk’s PayPal History A Funny Part Of This Story?

��

The launch brings Musk back full circle to an area where he had his first successful business – before becoming known for electric cars and rockets, Musk co founded X.com, an online financial company that later became part of PayPal after a merger with Confinity. PayPal went on to become one of the world’s best known digital payment services after changing how people sent money over the internet.

X Money instead puts banking and payments on X, so users can chat, read posts and send money from one app. It also adds direct deposits, cashback, debit cards and bill payments, so it’s closer to a digital banking service than it is to being a payment app.

��

Could X Money Rival PayPal?

��

With the features we’ve discussed, X Money clearly already has many of the services people use PayPal for. Users can send money instantly, receive payments and manage everyday spending from one account.

The difference is that X wants users to carry out more financial activities through its platform instead of using separate banking apps.

Something that X Money falls short on is that its only available in the United States, whereas PayPal is available across many countries.

More than twenty years after helping build PayPal, Musk has returned to digital payments. This time, X Money brings banking services, payments and social media all into one platform – one of the latest products in his long involvement with online finance.

The post Can Elon Musk’s New X Money Platform Rival PayPal? appeared first on 91̽��.

The case has now reached a new stage: if AI helps make employment decisions, who exactly is responsible when workers believe those decisions were unfair, especially if people who aren’t in the company can see how the tech was used?

��

What Has Happened Since The Lawsuit Was Filed?

��

A US judge has refused to temporarily stop Meta from completing the redundancies, according to Reuters. The ruling does not settle the case but, it does show just how difficult it can be for employees to prove an employer relied on AI when making redundancy decisions.

US District Judge William Orrick said the workers faced a basic obstacle because, as he says, “they were not in the rooms where it happened.”

The employees claim AI systems influenced redundancy decisions, but they cannot easily prove how those systems were used because Meta controls almost all of the information. Judge Orrick also said he had to accept Meta’s explanation for now because the workers had not produced evidence to challenge it.

The judge has not closed the case and he will later decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction that could return the employees to their jobs until their individual legal cases finish. He also said he could reach a different decision if the workers produce evidence “regarding whether and how AI was used in an improper manner.” A hearing is scheduled for 24 August.

��

Why Is Proving An AI Case So Tricky?

��

According to Reuters, legal specialists say this lawsuit helps explain why many people expected a flood of AI employment cases, but very few have reached court.

One reason is that workers often have little knowledge of how AI systems operate within their workplace. Many employees have also signed arbitration agreements. These agreements usually stop workers from bringing class action lawsuits or presenting their cases before a jury, sending disputes into private arbitration instead.

Christine Webber, co chair of the civil rights and employment practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, said confidential arbitration can stop information becoming public.

She said, “Even if you establish that a particular system would produce discriminatory outcomes left and right, you have no way of sharing that information with other employees.”

Reuters reported the Meta workers are also bound by arbitration agreements. Each employee must usually pursue an individual case rather than joining together in a public courtroom.

��

Who Is Responsible When AI Helps Make Workplace Decisions?

��

The workers claim Meta consulted internal AI assisted systems when selecting jobs for redundancy. According to the lawsuit, these systems tracked productivity, AI token usage, workplace communications and activity, including a large language model assistant known as Metamate and productivity scoring built from keystrokes, screen content, emails and browser history.

Meta rejects those claims and court filings and company statements say people made every decision connected to the nearly 8,000 redundancies announced earlier this year. A Meta spokesperson also said the company had no further comment after last week’s ruling.

The legal case now comes down to an issue many workplaces could face. If software helps rank employees, but managers approve the final decision, who is responsible when workers believe the outcome was unfair?

The court has not answered it, so now, it’ll be a matter of waiting to see if the employees can uncover enough evidence to show exactly how AI was used behind closed doors.

We’ve asked experts who they think should be responsible in such cases, and here’s what they shared…

��

Our Experts:

��

• Rob McKellar, Legal Services Director, Peninsula
• Catherine Mitchell, Employment Partner, HCR Law
• Mahendra Balal, Founder, Sovereix
• Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, Cybersecurity Researcher & Ethical Hacker, Founder, BNVD.org

��

Rob McKellar, Legal Services Director, Peninsula

��

��

“The current legal system is not set up to cater with AI making dismissal decisions which means that dismissals should remain under human control. Employers remain ultimately responsible for decisions made under their authority, even if they rely on AI systems.

“Employer actions, including those that may result in unfair or wrongful dismissals, whether by AI or human decision, can lead to legal claim. Employers are expected to provide fair procedures, reasonable notice, and lawful reasons for dismissals. If an AI system fails to meet these standards, the employer could be held liable for the consequences, and an employment tribunal judge is not likely to accept a defence of “It was AI’s decision to dismiss”.

“Because of this, it is essential that humans continue to make dismissal decisions, even if AI has been used during the process, to ensure that decisions remain fair and reasonable, free from bias or discrimination that may be present in AI decisions.”
��

Catherine Mitchell, Employment Partner, HCR Law

��

��

“When large organisations try to outsource the decision-making to AI they are tangoing with risk.

“Employment law holds employers responsible for decisions affecting employees. If an employer uses AI they must understand that it is a tool and should never be allowed to make a decision autonomously.

“AI won’t understand the nuances of an employee’s role. And it won’t be able to run a fair process without a human steering it. An organisation can feed all the information it has into AI and allow it to run algorithms but we are already seeing large organisations get it wrong. There is no nuance, no human understanding of the issue. As a result, an employer could find themselves facing significant claims from those who feel they have been wrongfully or unfairly dismissed.

“Humans should always be at the centre of the decision-making process, especially in employment and definitely when dismissing workers. These are real people’s lives and real businesses footing the bill for getting it wrong.”

��

Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, Cybersecurity Researcher & Ethical Hacker, Founder, BNVD.org

��

��

“Accountability starts with whoever deployed the system without a human-in-the-loop review mechanism. The vendor built the model, but the employer chose to replace a human decision with a black box output. In practice, liability falls on the employer because they control the termination process and are legally the decision maker. But the real gap is that most AI hiring and firing tools ship with disclaimers that shift risk entirely onto the customer while the vendor keeps no liability for outcomes.

“When a model hallucinates a performance metric or misweights a tenure factor, no one owns that error contractually. At BNVD.org we have analysed termination disputes where employers could not explain which features drove the AI decision because the model was a third party SaaS API with no audit trail. The fix is regulatory: require employers to run a parallel human review for any AI driven termination and mandate that vendors expose the feature weights and confidence intervals of each decision. If the vendor cannot explain the output, they should not be indemnified.”

��

Mahendra Balal, Founder, Sovereix

��

��

“When an AI makes an error that results in the termination of a worker, that is on the enterprise’s executive leadership and the human resources management team, not the software vendor and certainly not the algorithm itself.

“As an analyst at Sovereix, I focus on AI integration and enterprise risk, and I see AI in terms of capital expenditure and tooling. AI is a sophisticated operational tool, not a scapegoat. If a physical machine fails in a factory and injures a worker, the management is liable both legally and operationally for not having proper safety procedures and supervision in place.

“Algorithmic management is subject to the same unit economics of liability. A company that deploys an autonomous AI agent for important HR decisions without a human-in-the-loop failsafe or proper audits for algorithmic drift puts efficiency before risk management. You can ask an AI to do the work of performance evaluation, but you can’t outsource the fiduciary and legal responsibility for the result.”

The post Experts Share: Who Should Be Held Accountable When AI Wrongfully Dismisses Workers? appeared first on 91̽��.

Well, according to an official press release issued by Paramount in February this year.

The update, however, is that Paramount Skydance may actually not��be acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery – well, at least not yet. Following a significant amount of back and forth, legal proceedings and thoughtful deliberations, a US federal judge has finally made a ruling and announced that the merger of the two companies is officially blocked for the next 14 days.

Thus, much to the dismay of the powers that be at both companies (especially Paramount), the plans to join forces cannot proceed for the time being, undoubtedly costing Paramount a significant amount of money.

However, on the other hand, the ruling that imposes the temporary block may also give the company some time to properly refute and possibly, as they almost certainly hope, completely stop the lawsuit in its tracks. Because, as several experts have speculated, a months-long lawsuit may end up costing close to $1 billion.

��

What Does the Block or “Temporary Hold” Mean for the Merger?

��

First and foremost, it means that, according to the law imposed by Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín earlier this week, the two companies may not continue any activity that equates to “finalising” the actual deal, on the one hand, or continuing to join Paramount and Warner Bros. together in a practical sense.

According to reporting by the BBC, Judge Martínez-Olguín has made it very clear that her immediate concern lies not only in the result of the finalised merger but the actual coming together that is (or rather, was) currently underway. Indeed, her view is that the lawsuit has raised some “serious questions” about how the deal will influence the industry at large, and allowing the acquisition process to continue in the background while the case is discussed may lead to some changes that could do irreversible damage.

��

��

Who Is Bringing the Lawsuit?

��

The challenge isn’t just coming from a rival media company (no, it’s not Netflix) or an unhappy shareholder. Instead, it’s been brought by a coalition of 12 US states led by California, which argues that the deal would significantly reduce competition across the entertainment industry. According to the Associated Press, the states claim that combining Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery would create an entity that would effectively have control of nearly a third of both the theatrical film distribution and basic cable markets. And that, according to them, is simply too much.

The states’ argument is, essentially, that this isn’t just another corporate merger. It’s not just about the bringing together of two of Hollywood’s biggest studios, major television networks, news organisations and streaming platforms under a single umbrella. Indeed, the major concern is that this level of consolidation could ultimately reduce consumer choice and weaken competition for everyone – for both audiences and creative talent too (that is, actresses, actors, directors, crews, writers and everybody else in the industry).

That’s the main lawsuit. But, believe it or not, there’s actually also a whole seperate challenge from the Writers Guild of America, which argues that the merger could reduce opportunities for screenwriters and contribute to further consolidation of creative power within Hollywood.

And in many ways, the consolidation of creativity into a single “power” kind of defeats the whole point of creativity altogether.

��

How Strong Is the Case?

��

The fact that the lawsuit has gone this far seems to indicate that regulators and the courts believe there are genuine questions worth answering. Judge Martínez-Olguín literally said exactly this, and further to that, in a separate filing, she reportedly noted that the combined company’s projected market share alone was enough to create a presumption that antitrust laws could be violated.

And that’s a strong statement, but it still doesn’t necessarily mean that the deal can’t and won’t end up going ahead.�� Paramount has strongly rejected these claims and argues that the merger is necessary to compete in a modern media landscape increasingly dominated by streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon and YouTube (the enemy of my enemy is my friend?). The company has stated that the states’ arguments are “without merit” and fail to reflect current market realities. Basically, they’ve said that the markets are being misinterpreted.

Still, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that the challenge has made it beyond the initial filing stage and has already delayed a transaction worth around $110 billion, costing Paramount not only patience but real dollars too. Judges don’t typically hit pause on deals of this size unless they believe the underlying concerns deserve serious consideration, so it’s safe to say this case is pretty darn serious.

��

What Does This Mean For Streaming?

��

Apart from the obvious (that is, well, we’ll have to wait and see what happens), in some ways, this case feels much bigger than Paramount and Warner Bros. The merger between these two companies may simply be “taking one for the team” in being the first of its kind (at least in scale).

For years, streaming companies have been locked in a “mine’s bigger than yours” arms race, competing over who has the bigger libraries, bigger budgets and bigger subscriber numbers. Indeed, many experts who have been watching closely argue that consolidation was almost inevitable. And the logic behind that this was simply that if audiences are drowning in choice, owning more content gives platforms a better chance of keeping subscribers paying every month.

And while that logic may make sense for the companies themselves, it has also started to create its own problems.

Consumers are increasingly suffering from subscription fatigue, and it’s becoming spoken about more and more often. What started as a cheaper alternative to cable has evolved into a confusing maze of monthly payments and jumping between Netflix, Disney+, Prime, Paramount+, Apple TV+ and countless others, often discovering that a show available on one platform this month has migrated somewhere else the next. Evenings that used to be about “shall we watch a movie?” have become more focused on, “which platform should we use”?

The irony is that many of these mergers are being justified as a way of competing with tech giants, yet they also contribute to the fragmentation that audiences increasingly complain about.

If regulators successfully block the Paramount-Warner deal, it could indicate a tougher stance on media consolidation in the future. Other companies considering major acquisitions may find themselves facing greater scrutiny, particularly when they already possess significant market share.

But whether that’s a good thing depends on who you ask – I think we know what David Ellison would say.

Supporters of intervention argue that competition produces better content, more opportunities for creators and more choice for consumers. Critics, on the other hand, argue that traditional media companies need scale if they’re going to survive in a world where technology platforms dominate attention, advertising and distribution, and blocking deals like this will simply stifle growth and introduce a ceiling to progress.

So for now, the merger remains in limbo. But regardless of whether Paramount ultimately wins or loses, the case has exposed a growing identity crisis within the streaming industry and means that for any other major corporations hoping to do something similar, slipping under the radar won’t be so easy.

So, is the future of entertainment going to be a handful of mega-platforms controlling everything? Or, should regulators step in before Hollywood becomes too concentrated? Well, it seems as though the courts are trying to give us an answer, at least something to start with, so we’ll have to wait and see which way they gp.

The post The Paramount-Warner Bros Merger Pause Exposes Streaming’s Growing Identity Crisis appeared first on 91̽��.