What Are ‘AI Agents’ And Why Are They Struggling?

AI agents are software systems that use large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT or Claude, in combination with tools and applications to carry out goal-driven tasks without constant human input. Unlike chatbots or virtual assistants that only provide responses, agentic AI is designed to take actions, such as navigating software, interacting with web content, or managing emails, based on natural language instructions.

Examples include agents that can generate reports, schedule meetings, or execute multi-step operations such as processing CRM queries or managing code deployments. The idea behind them is that AI can behave like a semi-autonomous digital worker, thereby improving speed and efficiency while reducing costs. However, recent evidence suggests the reality falls far short of the promise.

For example, in a landmark study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), most of today’s leading AI agents were only able to complete around 30–35 per cent of assigned office tasks. That means they failed nearly 70 per cent of the time.

Testing Real-World Tasks

To evaluate how AI agents perform in realistic workplace scenarios, the CMU team created TheAgentCompany, a simulated IT company environment designed to mimic tasks that real employees might encounter. These included browsing the web, writing and editing code, interpreting spreadsheets, drafting performance reviews, and messaging colleagues on internal comms tools like RocketChat.

Results Not Good

Researchers tested agents based on how many tasks they could complete fully and accurately. Top-scoring models included Gemini 2.5 Pro, which managed a 30.3 per cent success rate, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet, which achieved 26.3 per cent. Other well-known models fared worse. GPT-4o completed just 8.6 per cent of tasks, while some large-scale models like Amazon-Nova-Pro and Qwen-2 scored under 2 per cent.

Variation and Serious Slip-Ups

“We find in experiments that the best-performing model…was able to autonomously perform 30.3 per cent of the provided tests to completion,” the CMU team noted. Even with extra credit for partial progress, most agents still fell short of reliable performance.

Also, it looks as though the failures weren’t just minor slip-ups. For example, in some cases, agents forgot to message colleagues, froze while interacting with pop-ups, or even faked task completion, such as renaming users to make it seem like they’d contacted the correct person.

Salesforce’s Findings Echo the Concerns

A separate study by Salesforce offered similarly sobering results. In their CRM-focused benchmark CRMArena-Pro, LLM agents completed about 58 per cent of simple, single-turn customer service tasks. However, in multi-step scenarios where context had to be maintained, success rates dropped sharply to around 35 per cent. None of the evaluated agents demonstrated any meaningful understanding of confidentiality—an essential requirement for deployment in enterprise settings.

The researchers concluded: “LLM agents are generally not well-equipped with many of the skills essential for complex work tasks.”

Over 40 Per Cent of Projects Will Be Cancelled by 2027 …

Industry analysts at Gartner believe this isn’t just a technical hiccup, but could be an indicator of wider strategic risk. For example, the firm predicts that more than 40 per cent of all agentic AI projects will actually be cancelled by the end of 2027. Their assessment is based on the three key drivers of spiralling costs, unclear business value, and inadequate risk controls.

“Most agentic AI projects right now are early-stage experiments or proofs of concept that are mostly driven by hype and are often misapplied,” said Anushree Verma, Senior Director Analyst at Gartner. “This can blind organisations to the real cost and complexity of deploying AI agents at scale.”

A January 2025 Gartner poll of more than 3,400 business respondents revealed that while 19 per cent had already made significant investments in agentic AI, another 42 per cent were only dipping a toe in. Around a third were still waiting to see how the technology matures before committing.

What’s Going Wrong?

A key issue appears to be the fact that many supposed “AI agents” aren’t really agentic at all. For example, Gartner has criticised the growing trend of ‘agent washing’, where vendors rebrand chatbots, rule-based automation tools, or even basic assistants as ‘agents’ to ride the hype wave. Of the thousands of companies claiming to offer agentic AI products, Gartner estimates that only around 130 genuinely qualify.

Even for the legitimate players, it seems that technical challenges abound. For example, CMU’s team highlighted the following major limitations:

– Common-sense reasoning failures. AI agents often misinterpret basic instructions or misunderstand context. This limits their ability to carry out even straightforward workplace tasks.

– Poor tool integration. Many agents struggle to operate reliably within software interfaces. They may freeze, click the wrong buttons, or fail to retrieve the right data.

– Fabricated outputs. Hallucination remains a major problem. Agents sometimes invent plausible-sounding but incorrect responses. Among developers, 75 per cent report experiencing hallucinated functions or APIs.

– High cost and inefficiency. Despite being pitched as labour-saving, one study estimated that a typical AI agent task involved around 30 steps and cost over $6, which is often more than it would take a person to do manually.

– Security and privacy risks. Because agents need wide-ranging system permissions, there’s a serious risk they could accidentally expose sensitive data, or act unpredictably in ways that breach confidentiality.

Complexity and Context

While some agent frameworks are improving, it seems that the wider problem is that many office tasks require not just automation, but judgement. For example, Graham Neubig, a co-author of the CMU paper, explained that while coding agents can be sandboxed to limit risk, office agents must interact with live systems, sensitive messages, and human colleagues.

“It’s very easy to sandbox code…whereas, if an agent is processing emails on your company email server…it could send the email to the wrong people,” Neubig warned.

There’s also the issue of persistence. Multi-step tasks require agents to keep track of state, adapt based on outcomes, and respond to dynamic inputs. Even advanced models struggle to maintain context and consistency across more than a handful of steps, particularly when unexpected events, e.g. like a pop-up, error message, or missing file, intervene.

Buyers, and the Enterprise

For AI companies, the research findings appear to cast doubt on the maturity of the agentic AI market. Those selling genuine solutions will need to demonstrate clear, auditable performance, while others may face a credibility backlash if their products are exposed as agent-washed rebrands.

For enterprise buyers, the message is to proceed with caution. Agentic AI holds promise, but only for very specific use cases where outputs can be clearly defined, risks are manageable, and success is measurable. Without that, projects risk becoming costly distractions that never reach production.

Gartner suggests that businesses focus on agentic AI investments only where it can deliver proven ROI, e.g. by automating decisions, not just tasks, or by redesigning workflows to be agent-friendly from the ground up. “It’s about driving business value through cost, quality, speed and scale,” Verma explained.

Even so, Gartner remains optimistic that the agentic AI landscape will improve. By 2028, they predict that 15 per cent of all daily work decisions will be made autonomously by AI agents, up from none in 2024. They also expect 33 per cent of enterprise software applications to include agentic AI functionality by that time, suggesting that while short-term challenges are real, the long-term potential may still emerge.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The current hype around AI agents may be loud, but the reality behind the scenes appears to be proving far messier. Recent research shows that these systems still struggle with many of the core qualities needed for effective office automation, e.g., context awareness, reliability, consistency, and trust. While some agents show promise in structured environments like coding or CRM workflows, real-world office tasks often involve ambiguity, judgement, and unexpected challenges that most agents today simply can’t handle. This mismatch between marketing and capability is already fuelling disillusionment across the enterprise tech landscape.

For UK businesses, this could mean adopting a much more measured approach. For example, rather than rushing into large-scale AI rollouts, organisations may want to carefully assess whether agentic tools truly solve the problem at hand, and whether those benefits outweigh the risks and complexity. In industries where security, compliance, or client confidentiality are vital, agents that behave unpredictably or hallucinate outputs could introduce significant operational or reputational risk. Decision-makers will need to ask hard questions about vendor claims, demand transparency around performance, and avoid falling for superficial rebrands.

Also, for AI developers and solution providers, the pressure is now mounting to deliver genuine value and technical maturity. As Gartner’s forecast suggests, many agentic AI projects may be scrapped before they ever reach deployment. Rising costs, patchy results, and lack of clarity about return on investment are already stalling momentum. Yet amid this shakeout, there remains opportunity. Businesses still want tools that save time, reduce admin overhead, and support hybrid teams. If AI agents can evolve into reliable, well-integrated assistants that are grounded in workflows that make sense for users, they may yet become part of the fabric of enterprise software.

Until then, the safest path forward appears to be to treat agents as experimental copilots, not replacements. Hybrid approaches that combine AI capabilities with human oversight are likely to produce the most stable and trustworthy results. For now, it seems that the goal shouldn’t be full autonomy, but augmentation that helps people work smarter, and doesn’t automate them out of the loop.

The post Featured Article : AI Agents Failing (40% Cancellations Predicted) appeared first on Mear Technology.

Two Login Credentials for Every Person on Earth

Security researchers at Cybernews have uncovered an unprecedented cache of login data scattered across unsecured web databases. These exposed collections, some open to the internet only briefly, were mostly hosted on misconfigured Elasticsearch instances or cloud object storage services, making them accessible without authentication.

All but one of the 30 datasets involved in the breach had not been reported previously. Combined, they include roughly two login credentials for every person on Earth!

A Blueprint For Mass Exploitation

“This is not just a leak – it’s a blueprint for mass exploitation,” said the Cybernews team, who have been tracking the breach since early 2024. “The structure and recency of these datasets make them particularly dangerous.”

From Apple, Google, Facebook, and More

While large-scale data breaches have become disturbingly common, this incident stands out for the freshness of the data and the scope of what’s included. For example, Cybernews has reported that the breach includes login credentials drawn from a huge range of services including Apple, Google, Facebook, GitHub, Telegram, VPNs, and even government portals.

More Than Just Usernames and Passwords

The datasets primarily consist of credentials stolen by infostealers, i.e. a type of malicious software designed to extract sensitive information from infected computers. Once installed (often via phishing emails, fake software updates, or pirated software), infostealers scan the victim’s device for stored logins, cookies, authentication tokens, and autofill data. These details are then quietly sent back to attackers’ servers.

In most cases, Cybernews reports that the stolen data is structured in a familiar format, i.e. the website URL, the username or email address, and the associated password. Some records are reported to include extra metadata, such as session cookies or two-factor authentication tokens, which can significantly aid attackers in bypassing security protections.

Cybernews estimates that some overlap exists between datasets, but even conservative estimates suggest billions of distinct login records are involved. The largest single collection, linked to a Portuguese-speaking population, holds over 3.5 billion records. Others are named generically (such as “logins” or “credentials”) while some reference specific services like Telegram or locations such as the Russian Federation.

Who’s Behind It and Who’s Affected?

It appears that the origin of these leaked datasets remains murky. Although some may have been compiled by cybercriminals intent on launching mass-scale phishing or credential stuffing attacks, others could belong to grey-hat researchers, aggregating leaked data for academic or threat intelligence purposes. However, it should be noted that the absence of clear attribution makes them no less dangerous.

Cybersecurity experts have warned that even if only a fraction of the 16 billion records are actively exploited, the consequences could be severe. Identity theft, business email compromise (BEC), unauthorised access to cloud services, ransomware attacks, and financial fraud are all plausible next steps.

A significant concern is that many users still reuse the same password across multiple sites (known as ‘password sharing’). Attackers often employ credential stuffing, a tactic that involves testing stolen username/password pairs against a wide range of sites, hoping users have reused credentials elsewhere.

The impact is not likely to be just limited to individual consumers. Businesses, particularly those lacking multi-factor authentication (MFA) or modern password management protocols, are at risk of full-scale account takeovers. These in turn could lead to data theft, service disruption, or reputational damage.

What Tech Companies and Security Experts Are Saying

So far, most affected companies have not issued individual statements, probably because the breach is not tied to a specific platform or service – the leak is an aggregation of credentials siphoned off via malware over time.

However, the Cybernews team and other researchers have voiced serious concern. “Credential leaks at this scale are fuel for phishing campaigns, ransomware intrusions, and business email compromise,” the team said in its public briefing. “The inclusion of both old and recent infostealer logs – often with tokens, cookies, and metadata – makes this data particularly dangerous for organisations lacking multi-factor authentication or credential hygiene practices.”

Security vendor Malwarebytes described the incident as “a wake-up call” for both users and companies. “This is a stark reminder that infostealer malware remains an enormous threat and that misconfigured cloud services continue to expose sensitive data at scale.”

More of a ‘Combolist’

Some experts have cautioned against treating the breach as a single event, noting that it is better understood as a massive combolist, i.e., a curated aggregation of multiple smaller leaks. Even so, the potential for harm remains high.

Why This Breach Is Different and What Comes Next

Unlike older breaches which often contain outdated or previously exposed data, these records are mostly new. Only one of the 30 datasets had been reported before (a 184 million-entry trove covered by Wired in May). The rest have emerged only recently, some in the last few weeks, suggesting that infostealer activity is ongoing and highly active.

Not Indexed Yet

At the moment (it’s still early days since the discovery), compounding the risk is the lack of visibility. Many of the exposed credentials have not yet been indexed by breach monitoring services or browser alert systems, meaning users aren’t being automatically notified if their details are among those leaked.

Also, because the databases were reportedly only briefly exposed, researchers say they could not determine who held or uploaded the data, nor whether it has already been downloaded or traded on criminal forums.

What Should Users and Businesses Do Now?

For individual users, the recommendations are fairly straightforward but urgent and they probably echo most of the points of security good practice around breaches. For example:

– Immediately change passwords on any accounts using duplicated or weak credentials.

– Use a password manager to generate and store complex, unique passwords for every service.

– Enable multi-factor authentication (MFA) wherever possible.

– Monitor for phishing emails or unusual account activity, especially logins from unfamiliar locations or devices.

– Run antivirus and anti-malware tools to scan for potential infostealers on your system.

For businesses, the stakes are higher. Implementing stronger access controls, requiring MFA across all services, and deploying endpoint detection tools are worthwhile steps. Regular audits of privileged access accounts, secure cloud configurations, and employee training on phishing threats are also essential.

Experts also recommend checking employee and corporate credentials against breach monitoring services such as Have I Been Pwned or Cybernews’ Leaked Database Checker.

Could Big Tech Be Doing More?

Looking at where many of these stolen credentials came from, it’s perhaps not surprising that there is growing pressure on tech platforms to go beyond offering MFA as an optional feature. Some experts are calling for default-on MFA policies, improved session token management, and better user alerts for credential misuse. Others suggest that browser makers could more aggressively warn users about unsafe passwords, even when stored locally.

Cloud service providers also face scrutiny. For example, misconfigured storage services remain a recurring source of data exposure and security researchers have long warned that businesses often fail to understand the shared responsibility model of cloud hosting, which places the burden of securing customer data squarely on the organisation using the service, not the cloud provider itself.

Combined for Weaponisation

This breach essentially demonstrates how aggregated, seemingly disparate data leaks can combine to form a vast, weaponisable archive of credentials. Also, without rapid, coordinated responses from users, businesses, and tech providers alike, the consequences may stretch far beyond compromised passwords.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The sheer scale and structure of this breach underline how fragile the global system of digital identity has become. With 16 billion credentials exposed, many of them recent, unrecycled, and complete with cookies and tokens, the barrier to entry for cybercriminals appears to have been lowered dramatically. This isn’t just an escalation in volume, it’s a shift in the quality and usability of stolen data. For attackers, this is a ready-made toolkit for highly convincing phishing, large-scale account takeover attempts, and social engineering operations that could target everyone from individual users to senior staff within high-profile organisations.

For UK businesses, the risks are not theoretical. Any organisation with staff using shared or recycled passwords, without enforced multi-factor authentication, could find themselves an easy target. For example, compromised employee accounts can quickly open doors to sensitive systems, intellectual property, financial accounts or customer data. The consequences are likely to include financial loss, regulatory penalties, and long-term reputational damage. This is especially pressing for sectors handling critical infrastructure or customer data, such as healthcare, education, local government and law firms.

The fact that so many of the datasets were discovered in misconfigured online storage shows how easily even vast amounts of sensitive information can be left vulnerable. This again raises questions about internal security practices, not just among cybercriminals, but among businesses and developers failing to properly secure cloud environments. As more breaches emerge from poor cloud hygiene, regulators may well move to demand greater accountability and oversight from cloud service providers and their clients.

For security professionals and digital privacy advocates, this breach reinforces the need to accelerate the move away from passwords altogether. Passkey adoption, hardware-based authentication, and biometric alternatives are already gaining traction, but the pace remains slow. Meanwhile, tools such as credential stuffing bots and AI-enhanced phishing make password-only systems increasingly outdated and risky.

The discovery also points to a deeper issue around breach notification and public awareness. Because these credentials were collected silently through infostealers and surfaced only when aggregated by researchers, the victims (both users and the platforms their data was stolen from) may have no idea they were compromised. With no clear breach event to attribute, many companies are, therefore, unlikely to report or even detect the loss. This leaves users exposed and unprepared, and it puts the onus on breach checkers and independent researchers to close the gap.

This incident serves as a stark reminder that security needs to be proactive, not reactive. Businesses should no longer view breaches as isolated events but as part of an ongoing data extraction economy that thrives on delay, misconfiguration and user complacency. Whether you’re a multinational tech firm, a regional employer, or an individual internet user, the threat landscape has shifted again and this time, the scale is difficult to ignore.

The post Featured Article : Historic Global Leak : 16 Billion Logins Exposed appeared first on Mear Technology.

Update

However, in a recent update (changing daily it seems!) the Trump administration has exempted smartphones and computers from the recently imposed tariffs, including the 10 per cent global tariff and the 125 per cent tariff on China. This exemption also extends to other electronics like memory cards, solar cells, and semiconductors.

iPhone Sales Surge as Tariff Panic Takes Hold

Just a short time after President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports, it seems Apple stores across the US have been reporting a noticeable spike in iPhone upgrades. The catalyst has been the concern that the cost of new devices could soon rise sharply if Apple’s supply chain takes a direct hit.

For example, retail staff in several major cities have reported that shoppers appear to be acting pre-emptively, prompted by growing speculation that this latest wave of tariffs could disrupt pricing sooner than expected.

Warning

Although Apple hasn’t announced any official price changes, analysts have warned that production costs for devices like the iPhone 16 Pro could jump by over $250 if Chinese-made components are hit with the full weight of Trump’s tariff package. For buyers, the risk isn’t just higher prices, but it’s also the possibility of deals and trade-in incentives vanishing overnight.

As Dan Ives, Managing Director at Wedbush Securities points out: “If Apple passes on the full tariff burden, we’re looking at iPhones retailing for over $2,000,” adding “That kind of pricing would be a major shock to the system—especially in the US market.”

What’s Actually Happening With The Tariffs?

At the time of writing this article (11.04.25), President Donald Trump announced a sweeping set of tariffs targeting Chinese-made goods as part of what he’s dubbed an economic “Liberation Day.” Under this new regime, levies on certain imports have reportedly surged to a cumulative 145 per cent, with electronics, including smartphones, firmly in the firing line.

For Apple, the timing couldn’t be worse. For example, around 90 per cent of iPhones are still assembled in China, and the prospect of such sharp increases in import costs has sent alarm bells ringing. Analysts now estimate that tariffs alone could push the production cost of a high-end iPhone 16 Pro Max from $1,199 to over $2,100 if passed on to consumers. Also, if Apple were ever forced to shift final assembly to the US, the price could skyrocket to as much as $3,500 per device, an outcome most observers still see as unrealistic but not entirely off the table.

While Trump has pointed to Apple’s $500 billion investment pledge as proof that iPhone manufacturing could be repatriated, the fine print appears to tell a different story. For example, most of that spending is expected to go toward R&D and AI infrastructure, not assembly lines. As things stand, it’s been reported that Apple’s short-term solution was to ramp up production in India and fly devices to the US by charter jet! That sounds like an expensive (and not very environmentally friendly) workaround, but one that avoids the full impact of the China tariffs for now.

Behind the scenes, Apple is also said to be lobbying for an exemption, similar to the one it secured during Trump’s first administration. However, with no guarantee of success and political rhetoric heating up, the company may have little choice but to start factoring the cost of tariffs into its consumer pricing, if not now, then very soon.

Why It’s Hitting Apple So Hard

Quite simply, no other tech company is as exposed to this tariff storm as Apple. The iPhone accounts for roughly half of the firm’s total revenue, and its China-based supply chain (centred around Foxconn’s vast factories) has long been central to its global dominance.

That exposure has seriously spooked investors. For example, Apple’s shares fell 19 per cent over just three days last week, marking the worst such dip for the company in nearly 25 years! The combination of supply chain vulnerability, investor nervousness and potential consumer backlash has sent shockwaves through both Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

What’s Apple Doing About It?

Apple hasn’t made any official comment on the situation at this point, but sources close to the company suggest it is already taking steps to reduce its reliance on Chinese manufacturing, most notably by perhaps ramping up production in India.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Apple plans to redirect a significant share of its India-assembled iPhones to the US market as a short-term fix. Although India faces a 26 per cent tariff under Trump’s new policy, that’s still roughly half that imposed on Chinese goods, thereby making it seem to be a more viable alternative.

Building In India

Thankfully for Apple, it has been building up its Indian manufacturing base since 2017, initially focusing on older models and gradually moving towards assembling newer ones like the iPhone 15 and 16. In fact, Bank of America estimates Apple could make around 25 million iPhones in India this year, enough to supply about 50 per cent of US demand if redirected accordingly!

That said, even the India solution looks like it may have its limits. For example, Vietnam, another key site for Apple products like AirPods and Apple Watches, was slapped with an eye-watering 46 per cent tariff under the new plan. Also, moving large-scale production out of China entirely remains logistically (and financially) daunting.

The situation has led some analysts to joke that if consumers want a $3,500 iPhone, they may as well be made in the US, e.g. New Jersey or Texas.

What This Means for Apple’s Business Model

The tariff crisis presents Apple with a tough choice, i.e. absorb the extra costs and watch its profit margins shrink, or pass them on to consumers and risk a backlash.

Analysts say even a 30 per cent increase in iPhone prices could dent demand significantly, especially in mature markets where upgrades are already slowing. For Apple, which prides itself on premium pricing and tight margins, the threat to its bottom line is very real.

Also, there’s the question of investor confidence. The recent stock slide may only be the beginning if fears grow that Apple can’t adapt its supply chain fast enough to avoid future trade tensions. While the company has pledged to invest $500 billion in US manufacturing over the next four years, analysts remain sceptical about how much of that will directly impact iPhone production.

As Neil Shah, Vice President of Research at Counterpoint says: “There’s no easy way out,” and “Even moving 10 per cent of Apple’s supply chain out of China could take years and cost tens of billions. This is going to test Apple’s entire global strategy.”

What About Business Customers and Competitors?

For Apple’s business clients, ranging from SMEs to global enterprises, rising device costs could become a major headache. Many companies operate under bulk hardware contracts, and an across-the-board rise in iPhone prices could hit IT budgets hard. Many business owners also fear losing some of the attractive offers and deals they’ve been used to in better times.

Meanwhile, Apple’s competitors are watching closely. For example, Samsung and Google, both of which produce more of their hardware outside of China, may find themselves in a stronger position if Apple is forced to hike prices. Devices that were once considered too costly or too niche may suddenly look more attractive to price-sensitive consumers and businesses alike.

Even if Apple manages to dodge the worst of the tariff fallout, the current frenzy may have already exposed a key vulnerability in its strategy, i.e. an over-reliance on a region now sitting at the centre of a deepening geopolitical divide. The next few months could redefine where and how Apple makes its most iconic product, and at what price.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Whether or not iPhone prices spike in the coming weeks, the sudden rush to upgrade tells us one thing i.e., consumer and investor confidence in global supply chains is far more fragile than it once seemed. For Apple, this tariff-driven panic has highlighted just how exposed it remains to international political swings, despite years of effort to diversify its manufacturing base.

For now, Apple’s (reported) strategy of flying in India-made iPhones to dodge China-focused tariffs might offer a temporary cushion. However, the scale and speed of Trump’s latest trade measures suggest that piecemeal solutions may no longer be enough. If production costs continue to rise, Apple may have little choice but to rethink both where it builds its devices and how it prices them, especially in core markets like the US, where consumer resistance to steep price hikes could quickly translate into lost sales.

For UK businesses, particularly those that issue iPhones through corporate mobile contracts or manage large device fleets, any upward shift in pricing could, of course, create budgetary pressure. Procurement cycles may, therefore, need to shorten, upgrade plans may be re-evaluated, and conversations around alternative suppliers could gain ground. With the whole tariff situation, supply chain disruption and global pricing volatility inevitably spill over, especially when the product in question is as globally embedded as the iPhone.

Meanwhile, rivals like Samsung and Google may be able to gain a little ground, though not without their own challenges. Samsung, for example, relies heavily on production in Vietnam, which has also been hit with a 46 per cent tariff under Trump’s new plan. Even so, with a more diversified supply chain and broader pricing range, these competitors may still appeal to businesses and consumers looking for more flexible or less exposed alternatives.

Apple, for all its brand loyalty, is facing a moment of reckoning, not just on pricing, but on the sustainability and resilience of its entire business model. What began as a tariff story may, therefore, trigger a much deeper shift in the balance of power across the global tech landscape.

The post Featured Article : Tariff Fears : Apple Upgrade Rush appeared first on Mear Technology.

Could Set Precedent

The case, currently set to be conducted behind closed doors, could set a major precedent for the future of encryption and government surveillance.

Why Apple is Fighting the UK Government

At the heart of the issue is Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, which the company recently withdrew from the UK market after refusing to comply with a government order to provide access (back doors) to encrypted user data. The feature, launched in 2022, offered end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for iCloud backups, photos, and notes, ensuring that only users could access their stored data. Even Apple itself could not decrypt this information, a security measure the company insists is critical to protecting user privacy.

However, the UK government issued a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), compelling Apple to create a mechanism (the ‘back door’ idea) that would allow law enforcement agencies to access encrypted user data when required. Apple refused and instead removed the feature entirely for UK users. While the company has not publicly detailed the exact reasoning, it is widely understood that Apple believes complying with the order would create a security back door, compromising user privacy not just in the UK but globally.

Legal Challenge

Consequently, Apple has now launched a legal challenge against the order, arguing that it is unlawful. But the proceedings are set to take place behind closed doors, prompting major privacy rights groups to intervene and call for transparency.

Why Rights Groups Are Demanding a Public Hearing

Three major privacy advocacy organisations, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, and Index on Censorship, have now written a joint letter to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), urging it to open the hearing to public scrutiny rather than conducting it behind closed doors. Their main argument is that millions of users in the UK, as well as international Apple customers, are affected by the case, and they have a right to know how their data security might be compromised.

For example, the letter, addressed to Lord Justice Singh, President of the IPT, states:

“This case implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users. There is significant public interest in knowing when and on what basis the UK government believes that it can compel a private company to undermine the privacy and security of its customers.”

The rights groups argue that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has a duty to hold hearings in public unless there is a compelling reason not to, such as a direct threat to national security. In this case, they say, there is no justification for secrecy, as the existence of the TCN has already been widely reported, and Apple has already reacted by withdrawing its encryption service in the UK.

The Legal Battle Over Encryption

The case has sparked fresh debate about encryption and its role in privacy versus law enforcement. Apple has consistently maintained that any back door created for law enforcement could be exploited by hackers and authoritarian regimes, ultimately making data less secure for everyone.

This argument is actually supported by many cybersecurity experts, who warn that once encryption is weakened for one purpose, it cannot be limited to just government use. Criminals, rogue states, and malicious actors could also exploit the vulnerability.

The UK government, however, insists that access to encrypted data is necessary in cases involving national security threats, terrorism, and child abuse investigations. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, companies can be compelled to provide access to data when law enforcement agencies make a valid request. The government claims that Apple’s refusal to comply could hinder criminal investigations.

Could Other Governments Follow the UK’s Lead?

One of the most concerning aspects of the UK’s demand is its potential global impact. For example, if Apple is forced to create a back door for UK law enforcement, this would set a precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This could include authoritarian regimes that might use such powers to suppress political dissidents, journalists, or activists.

Privacy advocates, therefore, argue that weakening encryption in one country may fundamentally undermine encryption everywhere. Once a vulnerability exists, it can be exploited by malicious actors globally. This is why Apple, and other tech companies, have resisted such demands in the past.

For example, in 2016, Apple famously refused to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino attack, arguing that doing so would compromise the security of all iPhone users. The FBI eventually paid a third party to crack the device, but the case set an important precedent for tech companies standing firm against government pressure.

Pressure from the US and Other Stakeholders

The UK is not the only place where the case has raised alarms. A group of US politicians, including Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, has also called on the IPT to hold the hearing in public. In a separate letter, they warned that the UK’s actions could have major security implications for users globally and could lead to a wider erosion of privacy rights.

The BBC has also weighed in, arguing that it should be allowed to report on the hearing given its widespread implications. As media and privacy groups continue to demand openness, the IPT will now have to decide whether to stick with a closed-door approach or allow public scrutiny.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Apple but for the wider technology industry and UK businesses that rely on secure communications. If the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rules in favour of the UK government, it may force tech firms to reconsider their encryption policies, making it more difficult to guarantee data privacy. This could erode trust in cloud storage and digital services, potentially impacting businesses that rely on these technologies to store sensitive corporate information securely.

On the other hand, if Apple prevails, it would send a strong message in defence of encryption, reinforcing the argument that companies should not be required to create vulnerabilities in their own security measures. Such a ruling could also influence similar debates worldwide, particularly as other governments look at introducing legislation that could force tech firms to weaken encryption.

For UK businesses, this legal battle highlights the growing tension between regulatory compliance and cybersecurity. Many companies depend on strong encryption to safeguard intellectual property, financial transactions, and customer data. If the UK government’s position on encryption tightens, firms may need to rethink how they handle data protection and cybersecurity risks.

More broadly, this case highlights deeper concerns about the balance between privacy and national security. For example, governments argue that access to encrypted data is essential for law enforcement, but privacy advocates warn that weakening encryption could expose users to greater risks. The push for transparency in Apple’s legal battle reflects a wider demand for accountability in government surveillance and policymaking.

As the tribunal prepares to make its decision, attention will remain fixed on the potential ramifications for digital privacy. Whether the hearing remains private or is opened to public scrutiny, the ruling will set an important precedent, shaping how governments and tech companies navigate encryption debates in the future. For now, UK users of Apple’s iCloud storage remain without Advanced Data Protection, and the outcome of this case will determine whether they ever get it back.

The post Featured Article : Public Hearing Demanded For Apple’s UK Encryption appeared first on Mear Technology.

Debate Ignited

The decision, which sees one of the world’s leading tech companies bowing out of a security standoff, has ignited debates over digital privacy, national security, and the future of encryption standards in the UK and beyond.

What is the Advanced Data Protection Tool?

Advanced Data Protection is Apple’s most robust encryption feature, providing end-to-end encryption for users’ iCloud data, including photos, notes, and backups. With ADP enabled, only the account holder can access this information, not even Apple itself can decrypt the data. The feature, introduced globally in late 2022, was designed to offer users greater control and protection against data breaches and cyber-attacks.

However, unlike standard encryption, which allows Apple to access certain user data when presented with a valid legal request, ADP closes off even this possibility. This heightened level of security made it particularly attractive to privacy-conscious users, but it has now become the focal point of a growing dispute between Apple and the UK government.

The UK’s Demand for Access (A ‘Back Door’)

Apple’s decision follows a demand from the UK government, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), which compels companies to provide data access to law enforcement agencies when legally requested. While Apple has long opposed creating “backdoors” into its systems, arguing that any intentional vulnerability could be exploited by cybercriminals, the UK’s insistence on access led to an impasse.

The UK government has not officially confirmed issuing a formal notice under the IPA, maintaining its policy of not commenting on operational matters. However, some media commentators have suggested that UK government pressure has been escalating behind the scenes, and may now have prompted Apple to withdraw ADP for UK customers entirely.

Apple’s Disappointment

In a strongly worded statement, Apple has expressed deep disappointment at having to disable ADP for UK users, and has said: “As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products, and we never will.”

The company has also highlighted the broader implications of weakening encryption, arguing that such actions would endanger all users by creating vulnerabilities exploitable by malicious actors or cybercriminals. Apple’s stance reflects a broader concern shared by many cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates who fear that undermining encryption in one country could set a dangerous global precedent.

What This Means for UK Apple Users

Apple’s decision essentially means that any Apple user in the UK now attempting to enable ADP will simply receive an error message. Existing users who had previously activated the feature will also see it disabled in the coming weeks.

It seems that while some forms of encryption remain intact (i.e. iMessages, FaceTime communications, and sensitive health data stored on iCloud) and will continue to be protected by end-to-end encryption, while other data types (such as full device backups and photos stored in iCloud) will no longer enjoy the same level of security in the UK. Under standard encryption, Apple retains the ability to access these files and could be compelled to share them with law enforcement upon receipt of a valid warrant.

Security vs. Privacy

The UK government’s push to weaken end-to-end encryption has sparked fierce opposition from privacy campaigners and cybersecurity experts. For example, Professor Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity specialist at the University of Surrey, has been quoted as describing the move as “an act of self-harm” by the government, adding: “All the UK government has achieved is to weaken online security and privacy for UK-based users.”

However, the UK government claims its perspective has been driven by concerns around national security and child protection. This view is supported by some relevant organisations. For example, Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the NSPCC, has been quoted as arguing that encryption could allow offenders to operate undetected, saying: “End-to-end encryption allows offenders to groom and manipulate children and build communities where they can share vile child sexual abuse material without detection.”

It seems, therefore, that the tension between privacy and protection is a delicate balance for tech firms operating under diverse international legal frameworks.

International Backlash and Global Ramifications

Apple’s withdrawal of ADP in the UK has drawn sharp criticism from global privacy advocates and even US lawmakers. For example, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (from Oregon) has been quoted as calling the move a “dangerous precedent” that authoritarian governments could exploit to justify similar demands in their own jurisdictions.

The broader concern appears to be that once a tech company concedes to one government’s demands for weakened encryption, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar pressures from other nations, including those with less regard for human rights and privacy.

Competitors and Market Impact

Apple’s decision could also have repercussions across the wider technology sector. Competitors like Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and WhatsApp (which also rely on end-to-end encryption) may now face mounting pressure from governments to implement similar data access measures. WhatsApp head Will Cathcart has warned that any weakening of encryption standards would compromise user security worldwide, saying: “If the UK forces a global backdoor into Apple’s security, it will make everyone in every country less safe.”

Also, the decision could erode consumer trust among UK users who are particularly conscious of (and value) their data privacy. Tech-savvy consumers may seek alternatives that continue to offer uncompromised encryption features, potentially benefiting companies headquartered in jurisdictions with stronger privacy protections.

The Future of Encryption in the UK

For now, it seems that, despite its current disappointment, Apple remains hopeful that it will be able to reinstate ADP in the UK in the future. In its official statement, the company highlighted its commitment to user privacy, saying: “Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before.”

However, the ongoing dispute highlights the growing tension between governments seeking broader surveillance powers and technology firms defending user privacy. As the legal and ethical debate continues, UK consumers are left grappling with the uncomfortable reality of diminished digital protections in an increasingly interconnected world.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

Apple’s removal of Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in the UK is a significant moment in the ongoing global debate over privacy, security, and governmental oversight. While the decision may seem like a straightforward technical adjustment, its broader implications touch upon issues of individual privacy rights, corporate responsibility, and the balance of power between governments and multinational technology firms.

At its core, this move by Apple highlights the increasing pressure technology companies face when navigating conflicting legal frameworks across different jurisdictions. Apple’s steadfast refusal to implement backdoors, despite mounting governmental pressure, aligns with its long-standing commitment to user privacy. However, by disabling ADP for UK users, Apple has effectively signalled that even the most privacy-focused companies must sometimes yield to local laws and regulatory demands, no matter how much they contradict the company’s own policies.

For UK businesses and organisations, this development raises immediate and pressing concerns. Companies that handle sensitive data (such as those in finance, healthcare, or legal sectors) may now find themselves at greater risk of data breaches or unauthorised access. With the most robust form of encryption disabled, organisations may need to reconsider their data protection strategies. This could mean investing in alternative security measures or exploring third-party services that still offer uncompromised encryption. Also, businesses that work internationally may find the regulatory discrepancy between the UK and other regions increasingly difficult to navigate, potentially leading to compliance headaches and increased operational costs.

On the international stage, the ripple effects of Apple’s decision may be far-reaching. Other governments, especially those with poor human rights records, could view this development as an opportunity to justify their own demands for weakened encryption. In this light, the UK’s stance may inadvertently contribute to a global erosion of digital privacy standards, emboldening authoritarian regimes to push for similar concessions from tech companies.

For consumers, the removal of ADP is a reminder of the fragile nature of digital privacy in an age of heightened governmental surveillance. Those in the UK who value strong encryption protections may begin to seek alternatives, potentially favouring services or platforms based in countries with stricter privacy laws. This shift could have longer-term consequences for Apple’s market share in the UK and could drive innovation among competitors aiming to fill the void left by ADP’s removal.

The post Featured Article : Apple Stops Advanced Data Protection Feature in the UK appeared first on Mear Technology.

IPA

The demand, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), represents one of the most significant clashes between a government and a major technology company over encryption and data protection.

What Has the UK Government Demanded?

According to recent reports (first published by The Washington Post and later confirmed by other media sources), the UK Home Office has served tech giant Apple with a “technical capability notice” under the IPA. This notice legally compels companies to provide law enforcement agencies with access to data, even if it is encrypted.

The government’s demand specifically targets Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, which offers end-to-end encryption for iCloud storage. This means that only the user has the decryption keys and even Apple itself cannot access the data. By enforcing this demand, the UK government appears to be seeking the ability to bypass or weaken this encryption, potentially gaining access to vast amounts of personal data stored by Apple users worldwide.

It’s been reported that when asked about the order, a Home Office spokesperson declined to confirm or deny its existence, stating, “We do not comment on operational matters, including, for example, confirming or denying the existence of any such notices.”

Why Is the UK Government Doing This?

The UK government argues that encryption enables criminals, including terrorists and child abusers, to evade law enforcement. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has previously criticised Apple’s encryption policies, arguing that they hinder efforts to track down online child abuse networks.

The UK’s intelligence agencies have long pushed for greater access to encrypted communications, claiming that end-to-end encryption makes it harder to investigate serious crimes. Officials insist that their goal is not mass surveillance but rather targeted access to individuals who pose security threats.

The Global Ramifications of Apple’s Response

The UK’s demand for access to encrypted iCloud data has raised global concerns over privacy and security. Security experts warn that creating a backdoor, even for government use, could expose vulnerabilities that may be exploited by cybercriminals or authoritarian regimes.

Apple now faces a difficult decision. Reports suggest that instead of complying with the UK order, Apple may remove the Advanced Data Protection feature for UK users altogether. While this would protect encryption standards globally, it would leave UK users more vulnerable to potential government access.

Privacy advocates, including Big Brother Watch, have condemned the UK’s move, calling it a “draconian overreach” that could set a precedent for other governments to demand similar access. The U.S.-based Electronic Frontier Foundation described the order as a global security emergency, warning that if Apple concedes, it could open the floodgates for further government-mandated backdoors worldwide.

Also, the timing of the order raises concerns. Recent revelations of large-scale cyber espionage campaigns, including Chinese state-sponsored hacks on telecoms firms, highlight the importance of strong encryption. Critics argue that weakening encryption in the name of security could paradoxically increase risks, exposing sensitive data to foreign adversaries and malicious actors.

The outcome of Apple’s decision will be closely watched by governments, privacy groups, and other tech giants, as it could define the future of encryption policies worldwide.

Privacy and Security Experts React

Privacy campaigners and cybersecurity experts have strongly condemned the UK government’s move.

For example, Rebecca Vincent, interim director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, described the demand as “an unprecedented attack on privacy rights that has no place in any democracy” and added that “we all want the government to be able to effectively tackle crime and terrorism, but breaking encryption will not make us safer. Instead, it will erode the fundamental rights and civil liberties of the entire population, and it will not stop with Apple.”

Professor Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert from the University of Surrey, has been quoted as saying he was “stunned” by the news, warning that creating a backdoor into encrypted systems poses a significant risk. “Once such an entry point is in place, it is only a matter of time before bad actors also discover it,” he cautioned.

Dangerous Precedent

On his X feed, Professor Woodward also said: “I fear the UK govt is being badly advised in picking this fight. For one thing, President Trump doesn’t welcome foreign regulation of US tech companies.”

Other major tech firms will be closely watching Apple’s response. If the UK government succeeds in forcing Apple to break its encryption, it could set a dangerous precedent, leading to similar demands for data access from other governments worldwide.

Can Apple Stop It?

Apple does have legal avenues to challenge the order. Under the IPA, companies can appeal. However, the law also states that compliance must continue during the appeals process, meaning Apple would have to implement the changes even as it fights the ruling in court.

If Apple refuses to comply outright, the UK government could impose financial penalties or take further legal action against the company. Given Apple’s previous stances on encryption, a legal battle between the tech giant and the UK government seems highly likely.

What Can Apple Users Do to Protect Their Data?

For concerned Apple users, there are a few steps to enhance personal data security:

– Turn off iCloud backups. Without iCloud backups, there would be no cloud-stored data for the government to access. However, this also means losing the ability to recover data if a device is lost or damaged.

– Use local device encryption. Data stored directly on Apple devices remains encrypted with hardware security features, making it more difficult for third parties to access.

– Enable two-factor authentication. This adds an extra layer of security to Apple accounts.

– Stay informed. Users should keep up to date with Apple’s response to this demand and any changes in privacy policies.

What Happens Next?

If the UK government successfully enforces this demand, it could mark the beginning of widespread government intervention in encrypted services. Other Western governments, including the United States, have previously attempted to pressure Apple into providing encryption backdoors, but so far, the company has resisted.

This case could be regarded, therefore, as being a crucial test of how far governments can push back against end-to-end encryption. If Apple bows to UK demands, it could embolden other governments to seek similar access. On the other hand, if Apple stands firm, it could set a precedent for other tech firms to resist government pressure on encryption.

Also, this may not stop with Apple. The UK government has previously targeted encrypted messaging services, such as Meta’s WhatsApp. In 2023, the UK government threatened to ban WhatsApp unless it provided a mechanism to scan encrypted messages for harmful content, a move that was widely criticised by privacy advocates. Other end-to-end encrypted services, including Signal and Telegram, could also face similar demands in the near future.

For now, the battle between Apple and the UK government is far from over. Whether the UK government backs down, Apple fights and wins, or encryption is permanently weakened, the outcome will have lasting implications for digital privacy and security worldwide.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

The UK government’s demand for access to Apple users’ encrypted data has raised some fundamental questions about the balance between security, privacy, and government oversight in the digital age. While law enforcement agencies argue that such measures are necessary to combat serious crimes, critics warn that undermining encryption sets a dangerous precedent that could weaken security for all users.

At the heart of this debate is the issue of trust i.e., trust in governments to act proportionately and trust in technology companies to uphold user privacy. If Apple concedes to the UK’s demand, it could signal the beginning of wider state intervention in encrypted services, potentially opening the door for similar requests from other nations. However, if Apple refuses, it risks legal repercussions, financial penalties, or even restrictions on its UK operations. This standoff will be watched closely not only by tech firms and governments but also by privacy advocates and cybersecurity experts worldwide.

The case highlights the ever-growing tension between technological advancements and regulatory controls. Encryption is not just a tool for privacy but is also a safeguard against cyber threats, corporate espionage, and authoritarian overreach. Weakening it in the name of security may, paradoxically, create more vulnerabilities rather than resolve them.

Whatever the outcome, this confrontation is unlikely to be the last of its kind. As digital privacy becomes an increasingly contested space, both governments and tech companies will continue to grapple with the difficult task of balancing individual rights with national security. Whether Apple’s response sets a new global standard or merely delays the inevitable, the impact of this battle will be felt far beyond the UK’s borders.

For UK businesses that rely on Apple’s encrypted services, the implications could be significant. Many companies depend on end-to-end encryption to protect sensitive corporate data, financial transactions, and confidential communications. Also, compliance with UK government demands could create conflicts with data protection regulations, such as GDPR, raising legal uncertainties for organisations handling customer and client information. If Apple withdraws certain encryption services from the UK market, businesses may be left searching for alternative, potentially less secure, solutions. In a global economy where data security is paramount, UK firms could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to counterparts operating in jurisdictions with stronger privacy protections.

The post Featured Article : UK Government Demands Apple Reveal Your Data appeared first on Mear Technology.

Background to the Antitrust Case

The case centres on allegations brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of state attorneys general that Google’s business practices have unlawfully entrenched its dominance in online search. The central issue lies in Google’s agreements with companies such as Apple, Mozilla, and various Android device manufacturers to make Google Search the default search engine on their devices and browsers. Critics have argued that these deals stifle competition, leaving little room for rivals to gain a foothold.

Finally, in August 2024, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that certain Google agreements violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by substantially foreclosing competition. The ruling stopped short of accusing Google of acquiring its dominance through anti-competitive conduct but concluded that some of its contracts were exclusive and unlawful. This judgement marked a significant development in the case, prompting the court to require Google to propose remedies while preparing its appeal.

Google’s Proposed Remedies

In a recent detailed legal filing, Google has outlined several measures it believes should address the court’s findings. For example, the proposed remedies aim to grant more flexibility to device manufacturers, browser developers, and partners, while allowing Google to continue competing on the merits of its products.

To summarise what Google said in the filing, the key proposals (remedies) relate to:

– Browser Agreements

Google has said that it will allow browser developers, such as Apple (Safari) and Mozilla (Firefox), to “continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users”, i.e. to be able to enter into deals with alternative search engines. These agreements will include provisions for browsers to set different default search engines across platforms or browsing modes, as well as the ability to change default providers annually.

– Android Flexibility

Device manufacturers will have the option to preload multiple search engines and apps without being compelled to preload Google Search or Chrome. Also, Google will no longer tie the licensing of its Google Play Store to the preloading of its search engine. Google’s filing noted that these changes would provide “additional flexibility” to manufacturers and allow rivals “more chances to bid for placement.”

– Generative AI Products

Addressing concerns over the emerging field of generative AI, Google’s new proposal includes measures to ensure its Gemini Assistant chatbot does not gain an unfair advantage. Manufacturers can license Google’s other products without being required to include Gemini, and rivals’ chatbots can be preloaded without restrictions.

– Oversight and Compliance

Google has suggested that it will have a robust oversight mechanism to ensure adherence to the remedies without granting excessive governmental control over its operations. Google emphasised that its proposal aims to balance regulatory compliance with its ability to innovate and compete.

– Duration of Remedies

Interestingly (and in contrast to the DOJ’s recommendation of a decade-long duration), Google has proposed only a three-year term for the remedies. Google has justified this by saying that “regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree” would harm competition and innovation.

Google’s Defence of Its Proposals

As may be expected, in its filing, Google characterised the proposed remedies as “overbroad” and warned of potential harm to both consumers and American technological leadership. For example, the company stated, “Markets are often more effective than the heavy hand of judicial power when it comes to enhancing consumer welfare,” citing the pace of innovation in artificial intelligence as a key factor.

Google also argued that its contracts have benefited users and partners, with the filing noting that “Google’s partners value its quality, and they continue to select Google as the default because its search engine provides the best bet for monetising queries.” Google was also keen to point out that people use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

Potential Impact of the Remedies

If accepted, Google’s proposals could reshape the search market, offering competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo a greater chance to gain prominence. Device manufacturers and browser developers would have increased flexibility, potentially leading to more diverse search options for consumers.

However, the three-year duration of the remedies has raised questions. Critics argue that this timeframe may be insufficient to dismantle Google’s entrenched dominance. Additionally, some observers view Google’s ability to continue entering revenue-sharing agreements as a potential loophole that may maintain its market position.

Reactions to Google’s Filing

Unfortunately for Google, the DOJ appears sceptical of the proposals, suggesting that they fall short of addressing the root issues. In fact, the DOJ lawyers have called for more stringent measures, including a prohibition on revenue-sharing contracts and the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. For example, the DOJ argued in its own filings that, “Structural remedies are necessary to restore competition.”

Google’s competitors in the search world have also, as expected, voiced concerns. Microsoft has reportedly expressed scepticism, suggesting that Google’s proposed remedies are unlikely to fundamentally change the dynamics of a market Google has dominated for years.

However, some industry analysts have noted the significance of Google’s inclusion of generative AI in its proposals in terms of Google perhaps acknowledging AI as a potential disruptor to traditional search.

The Road Ahead

As regards the next steps in this case, the judge (Judge Mehta) is expected to issue a decision on the remedies by August 2025, following hearings in April. The court’s ruling will determine whether Google’s proposed remedies are sufficient to address its antitrust violations or if more aggressive measures are warranted. As the case progresses, its outcome could have lasting implications for the tech industry and the competitive landscape of online search.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although the proposed remedies in Google’s high-profile antitrust case have been presented as a balanced approach that addresses regulatory concerns without stifling innovation, the measures have drawn mixed reactions from stakeholders, raising questions about their adequacy and long-term impact.

For businesses and consumers, the outcome of this case could reshape how search engines are integrated into devices and browsers, potentially increasing competition and providing more diverse options. Google’s willingness to grant manufacturers and developers greater flexibility in preloading search engines and apps could foster a more level playing field for rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. Similarly, its commitments around generative AI reflect an awareness of the evolving landscape and the need to address concerns in emerging technologies.

However, scepticism surrounding the three-year duration of the remedies and the continued use of revenue-sharing agreements highlights lingering doubts about whether these changes will meaningfully curb Google’s dominance. Critics argue that such a short timeframe might not provide sufficient opportunity for competitors to challenge Google’s entrenched position, while the proposed oversight mechanisms may lack the robustness needed to ensure compliance.

The scepticism from the DOJ and competitors, therefore, highlights the challenges of addressing monopolistic behaviour in what is a particularly dynamic, fast-evolving industry with some very wealthy, powerful and influential key players. Calls for structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome or imposing stricter limits on Google’s contracts, suggest that some stakeholders believe only more dramatic interventions can restore genuine competition.

This case, which is still ongoing, serves as a kind of litmus test for how regulators can try to balance promoting innovation with curbing monopolistic practices in the tech sector. It seems that Judge Mehta’s eventual decision will have far-reaching implications, not only for Google and its rivals but also for the broader regulatory framework governing dominant players in technology. As the case moves towards its next hearings, the tension between fostering competition and preserving innovation remains at the heart of the debate, making this what appears to be a defining moment for the future of the online search market.

The post Featured Article : Google Proposes AntiTrust Remedies appeared first on Mear Technology.

Investigation 

The European Commission (EC) launched an investigation into Google, Apple, and Meta to determine if their practices comply with the DMA. This (still ongoing) inquiry has been focused on potential violations by these tech giants that may undermine fair competition and consumer protection in the digital market. 

Google and Apple, for example, are under scrutiny over their app store policies and possible restrictions on third-party developers, which could inhibit competition. The investigation into Meta centres on its ‘pay or consent’ model. 

The Commission is essentially aiming to ensure these companies do not misuse their ‘gatekeeper’ positions to engage in unfair practices, restrict consumer choice, or impose discriminatory conditions. The investigation could result in significant penalties and mandated changes to their business practices to comply with the DMA. 

What Is Meta’s Pay Or Consent Model? 

The ‘pay or consent’ model is a business practice where users are given a binary choice between two options – either pay a fee for a service or consent to having their data collected and used for targeted advertising. In November 2023, in response to regulatory changes in the EU, Meta introduced its binary ‘pay or consent’ offer. This means that EU users of Facebook and Instagram must choose between: (i) the subscription for a monthly fee to an ads-free version of these social networks or (ii) the free-of-charge access to a version of these social networks with personalised ads. 

The Preliminary Findings – Why Is ‘Pay or Consent’ Not Acceptable Under The DMA Rules? 

The European Commission says it has informed Meta of its preliminary findings that its ‘pay or consent’ advertising model fails to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission says, in its preliminary view, “this binary choice forces users to consent to the combination of their personal data and fails to provide them a less personalised but equivalent version of Meta’s social networks”. 

According to the European Commission, Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model breaches Article 5(2) of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) because: 

– It doesn’t allow users to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the “personalised ads” based service.  

– It doesn’t allow users to exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data. 

The EC says that to ensure compliance with the DMA, “users who do not consent should still get access to an equivalent service which uses less of their personal data, in this case for the personalisation of advertising.” 

What Next For Meta? 

Further to being informed of the EC’s preliminary findings, Meta can now exercise its rights of defence, i.e. by examining the documents in the EC’s investigation file and replying in writing to the EC’s preliminary findings. The EC’s investigation is scheduled to conclude within 12 months from the opening of proceedings (on 25 March 2024). 

What If Meta Is Found To Be Breaching EU Rules? 

If the EC’s preliminary views are found to be confirmed and it decides Meta’s model really doesn’t comply with Article 5(2) of the DMA, it could impose fines up to 10 per cent of Meta’s total worldwide turnover! For repeated infringement, this fine could even be increased to 20 per cent. In the extreme case of “systematic non-compliance”, the EC could take additional measures such as obliging Meta to sell a business (or parts of it) or to ban Meta from acquisitions of additional services related to the systemic non-compliance. 

Constructive 

For the moment, however, the EC says it is continuing “constructive engagement with Meta” to identify a satisfactory path towards compliance. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The European Commission’s investigation into Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model is a significant development with broad implications for businesses in the UK and beyond. The Commission’s findings highlight the increasing regulatory scrutiny on how tech giants manage user data and the necessity for compliance with stringent data protection laws like the Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

For Meta, this scrutiny could potentially lead to substantial operational and financial changes. If the investigation confirms the preliminary findings, Meta may face hefty fines, as much as 10 per cent of its global revenue, or even 20 per cent for repeated offences. Such financial penalties would not only impact Meta’s profitability but could also mean a restructuring of its business model in the EU – certainly things that Meta would want to avoid.

At the moment, however, these are only preliminary findings and ‘constructive’ negotiations are under way. It has nevertheless sent a warning shot across their bows that the EC is watching and is serious about enforcement from the outset, thereby underscoring the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements and maintaining transparent data practices. 

Other big tech companies, particularly those operating within the EU, should take note of this investigation. The EC’s rigorous approach is also a signal of a broader regulatory trend that takes consumer rights and fair competition more seriously. Google, Apple, and similar companies must therefore ensure their policies align with DMA provisions to avoid similar investigations and potential penalties. This will mean proactive compliance strategies, where businesses regularly audit and adjust their data handling practices to meet evolving regulatory standards. 

For UK businesses, particularly those in the tech and digital sectors, the implications are twofold. First, understanding and complying with EU regulations remains crucial, especially for businesses with a significant user base or operational presence in Europe. The DMA’s focus on fair competition and consumer protection could lead to stricter data governance requirements, necessitating adjustments in how data is collected, stored, and utilised. 

Secondly, this development may offer a competitive edge to businesses that adhere to ethical data practices and who are transparent. By aligning with regulatory standards and demonstrating a commitment to user privacy, UK businesses can build trust and differentiate themselves in a market increasingly concerned with data protection. 

In essence, therefore, this ongoing investigation into Meta’s practices (as well as Google and Apple) serves as a reminder of the critical importance of regulatory compliance in the digital age, and that the EU area is getting serious about data protection and competition where tech firms are concerned. Businesses should, therefore, stay informed about legal developments, proactively engage with regulatory frameworks, and pay serious attention to matters of user privacy and data governance.

The post Featured Article : ‘Pay or Consent’ Model Breaches Rules appeared first on Mear Technology.

Showcasing New Products 

At Apple’s WWDC24 from June 10 to June 14, Apple showcased a variety of updates and advancements across its software platforms, including iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS, and visionOS. Key announcements included significant updates for iOS 18 and macOS 15, as well as new AI integrations and improvements to built-in apps like Photos and Apple Music. Crucially, the conference also highlighted Apple’s commitment to AI technologies and its plans to integrate generative AI capabilities into its devices.  

Let’s take a look at the key product and other announcements from WWDC24: 

iOS 18 

iOS 18, Apple’s latest iOS for iPhones introduces several significant updates, including a more customisable home screen, a redesigned Photos app with AI-powered editing tools, RCS support in Messages for improved cross-platform communication, and enhancements to the Mail, Calendar, and Maps apps. All these improvements are around making the iPhone more intuitive and powerful for users. Also, the Control Centre has now been revamped to feature a multipage layout with third-party widgets. 

One other fun new feature for iOS 18 around user-personalisation will be the ability for iPhone users to make their conversations more enjoyable by creating AI images of people they’re messaging with in a way that’s similar to an AI-upgraded Bitmoji. 

iPhones To Use Satellites 

There was also the announcement at WWDC 24 that with iOS 18, iPhone users will be able to send messages via satellite. This feature, available on iPhone 14 models and later, expands upon the existing Emergency SOS via satellite capability. It allows users to send and receive iMessages and SMS texts, including emoji and Tapbacks, even when they are out of range of cellular and Wi-Fi networks. 

macOS Sequoia 

Apple’s macOS Sequoia, the latest version of its OS for Macs has been given a range of new features including a new Passwords app, redesigned Reader view in Safari with machine learning integration, upgrades to Messages and Notes, and improved window management. The update also includes enhancements to Continuity, such as iPhone Mirroring. With iPhone Mirroring, (through macOS’ Continuity feature), users can mirror their iPhone’s screen and control it from their Mac laptop or desktop.   

All this should mean enhanced user productivity and convenience (better password management), a smarter browsing experience, more efficient multitasking, and improved messaging and note-taking capabilities 

iPadOS 18 

iPadOS 18 brings updates to the Notes app, including support for Math Notes and a new Calculator app that supports Apple Pencil. It also introduces a floating tab bar for better navigation and similar home screen customisation options to iOS 18. 

watchOS 11 

watchOS 11, the latest version of Apple’s operating system for Apple Watch, adds a redesigned Photos face, a new Translate app, and enhancements to the Fitness app, including a Training Load feature and a customisable Summary mode. It also introduces the Vitals app for health monitoring. The hope is that these new features will provide users with a more personalised and comprehensive fitness and health tracking experience, and a more intuitive and visually engaging interface. 

tvOS 18 

tvOS 18, the latest version of Apple’s OS for Apple TV includes AI-enhanced subtitles, Amazon X-Ray-style information while watching, and clearer dialogue options, improving the viewing experience on Apple TV 4K. 

‘InSight’ For Apple TV+ 

Those who use Apple TV+ may be pleased with the new InSight feature that displays actors’ names and song titles as they appear on the screen and is similar to Amazon’s X-Ray technology. Also, like Shazam, it highlights the song playing in the TV show or film and, as you may expect, then gives the user the option to add it to their Apple Music playlist. 

visionOS 2 

Apple’s OS for the Vision Pro headset, visionOS 2, has received upgrades to enhance the Vision Pro experience with new developer frameworks, an international launch schedule, and improved virtual display features. It also introduces new gestures and SharePlay support in the Photos app. For example, it will allow photos to be transformed into interactive experiences using AI. Notably, users will be able to turn existing images into spatial photos (including photos captured on older devices). 

New navigation gestures are also being introduced, and it supports higher resolution and larger virtual displays for connected Macs.  

Improvements also include new developer tools like volumetric APIs and TabletopKit for games, adds train support in travel mode, and expands content with new 180-degree 8K video formats through partnerships with content creators. 

New Markets For Vision Pro Headsets Announced

Accompanying the news of the upgraded features in visionOS 2, Apple has also announced that it will be making its Vision Pro headset available in eight new countries – China, Japan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the UK, and that the first release of the headset will be in China, Japan, and Singapore on June 28. 

Apple Intelligence 

The most significant announcement from WWDC24 is the introduction of Apple Intelligence, a new AI initiative aimed at integrating personal and private AI capabilities across Apple’s ecosystem. There was some concern that Apple has fallen behind in AI and its announcement that it is partnering with OpenAI to include its technology and ChatGPT, which prompted an angry reaction on X by Elon Musk (citing privacy concerns – although possibly more about competition concerns) is a significant strategic shift for Apple. 

Apple Intelligence includes, for example, significant upgrades to Siri (as outlined below), making interactions more natural and advanced, and other functionalities with advanced, personal, and private AI capabilities. Apple CEO, Tim Cook, described Apple Intelligence as “the next frontier” in personal AI and explained that the reason why it is so effective is that it will be able to “understand you and be grounded in your personal context, like your routine, your relationships, your communications and more”. 

Siri Upgrade 

The new Apple Intelligence AI initiative has meant that Siri, Apple’s virtual assistant, has received a substantial upgrade. The AI enhancements make Siri more conversational and contextually aware, so it can handle more complex tasks and understand a wider variety of requests. This should include being able to summarise incoming messages, executing commands across multiple apps, and integrating more naturally with users’ daily activities. Apple has also emphasised how most processing will be done ‘on-device’ to help user privacy. 

One significant announcement is, of course, that Siri will also be one of the apps that will be able to use OpenAI’s ChatGPT for “expertise”. Tapping into ChatGPT will also mean that users will also be able to include photos with questions for ChatGPT (via Siri) and even ask questions related to docs or PDFs. 

Developers And Siri 

It’s also worth noting here that Siri’s new capabilities will also allow developers to enable voice command access to any app menu items and displayed text without additional coding. This means users can issue commands like “show my presenter notes” in a slide deck or “FaceTime him” from a reminder, enhancing app functionality through natural language interactions and improving user experience. 

Next-Generation CarPlay 

Apple provided an updated look at the next-generation CarPlay system, the in-car system that allows users to integrate their iPhone with their vehicle’s infotainment system. The improvements include new Vehicle, Media, and Climate apps, designed to offer a more integrated and enhanced user experience. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The WWDC24 announcements appear to signify a transformative phase for Apple, with their belated yet determined and substantial adoption of AI all the way through their entire estate standing out as a strategic pivot. This initiative, which includes a partnership with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, enhances Siri’s capabilities, making it more contextually aware and conversational. For business users, this means more efficient and natural interactions with their devices, potentially improving productivity and streamlining workflows.  

The upgrades across iOS, macOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS collectively may create a more cohesive and powerful Apple ecosystem. For instance, iOS 18’s customisation options and AI-powered tools should make iPhones more versatile and user-friendly, while macOS Sequoia’s new features may enhance productivity through smarter password management, improved multitasking, and seamless integration with iPhones. These improvements could help businesses better manage their digital environments, ensuring that employees can work more efficiently and securely. 

The introduction of Messages via satellite with iOS 18 is significant for businesses operating in remote areas or in sectors where connectivity is often an issue, such as logistics, construction, and outdoor events, i.e. ensuring continuous communication, which is crucial for operational efficiency and safety. 

Apple’s Vision Pro headset and the enhanced visionOS 2 signals a move towards more immersive and interactive experiences. For industries such as design, training, and presentations, the ability to turn photos into interactive experiences and use spatial navigation may offer new ways to engage and educate. The expanded international availability of the Vision Pro headset may also open up new markets and opportunities for businesses worldwide. 

The updates to watchOS 11, with enhanced fitness and health tracking capabilities, emphasises Apple’s commitment to health and wellness, which may be particularly beneficial for businesses focusing on employee well-being and productivity. The new features in tvOS 18, such as AI-enhanced subtitles and detailed information while watching, enhance the user experience for both personal and professional usage, perhaps making Apple TV a more compelling option, e.g. for business presentations and entertainment. 

Overall, Apple’s latest announcements reflect a strategic effort to integrate advanced AI and machine learning technologies across its product range. This not only addresses fears of Apple lagging behind in AI but this could even position Apple as a leader in the AI space. It also offers business users innovative tools to enhance productivity, connectivity, and user-engagement. By leveraging the advancements outlined by Apple at WWDC24, businesses could improve their operational efficiency, employee satisfaction, and customer interactions, which may ultimately give Apple a stronger foothold in the competitive tech marketplace.

The post Featured Article : Apple Avalanche! appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Is ‘Batterygate’? 

Batterygate refers to a 2017 software update to iPhones by Apple that customers reported had slowed older iPhones down. It was alleged by some at the time that this had been an intentional move designed to motivate customers to buy a new battery or a new iPhone.  

Which iPhones? 

The older models of iPhone (released between 2014 and 2016) affected by slowing following the update were the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone SE. 

Claims Gained Momentum 

Claims by customers that their iPhones have been slowed by the update were supported by comparative performance tests of different models of the iPhone 6S on Reddit and Technology website Geekbench.  

As customers’ concerns mounted and received more press, Apple publicly admitted that its software update was responsible for the slowing, Apple apologised to customers in January 2018, and in 2020 agreed to pay $113m (£85m) in the hope of putting an end to the ‘Batterygate’ scandal. 

Also, in France in early 2020, Apple was fined $27 million by the country’s consumer watchdog for throttling the battery on older iPhones and it’s been reported that Apple had many (66) smaller batterygate lawsuits against it in the US, settling for $500 million in 2020, and agreeing (in a separate case) to pay out $113 million to 34 US States for the throttling of iPhone 6 and 7 devices. 

Power Management Tool 

Apple’s explanation of the iPhone update was that it was a power management tool to help combat performance issues and to help prolong the life of customer devices by managing their ageing lithium-ion batteries and preventing the inconvenience of a sudden and unexpected shutdown. Apple said (in 2018) that it would never intentionally “degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.” 

Justin Gutmann’s Lawsuit 

However, in 2022, consumer champion Justin Gutmann filed a lawsuit against Apple over the matter. In the lawsuit Mr Gutman claimed that hardware used by Apple in seven affected iPhone models couldn’t cope with the demands of the device’s processor and operating system. Mr Gutmann argued that Apple introduced the software tool in a concealed way to hide the fact that iPhone batteries may not have been able to run the latest iOS software at the time. 

Mr Gutmann also alleged that the “power management tool” pushed as part of the iPOS update had slowed the performance of their phones leading to many owners having to pay for replacement batteries or buy new phones. Mr Gutmann alleged that using the update to force people to pay for replacement batteries or entirely new phones amounted to Apple exploiting its market dominance in the UK. It was alleged that Apple’s apology and offer of a payout were essentially a plan to save Apple the cost of having to recall products and provide replacement batteries, by making users seek to buy their own new batteries or new iPhones after noticing a slowdown (following the update). 

Mr Gutmann, therefore, decided to launch his own lawsuit, seeking around £768m (now £850m) in damages for up to 25 million UK iPhone users.  

Case To Go Ahead 

Now, for the latest development in ‘Batterygate’ Mr Gutmann’s near $1 billion lawsuit on behalf of the affected owners has been cleared to proceed to court by UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal.  

With around 25 million customers affected, if the case doesn’t go Apple’s way, all the affected owners will be entitled to a compensation payout from Apple for each model of iPhone that they owned that was subject to slowing caused by the update. 

In its summary, The Competition Appeal tribunal highlights how the collective proceedings order (CPO): “seeks to combine, on an opt-out basis, the claims of consumers and business entities who have purchased, or were gifted, certain Apple iPhone models in particular iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus (“Affected iPhones”)”.  It also highlights how “Apple’s application to strike out the claim was dismissed” (Apple tried to have the case thrown out), and that the Tribunal has now “decided that the requirements of a CPO are met in this case.” 

The Tribunal did, however, also note that “aspects of the claim lack clarity” which it says, “impacts both the questions of the existence of abuse and the manner in which loss to the class is to be assessed.”  In other words, there’s likely to be some room for Apple’s lawyers (backed by the huge resources of the company) to mount a persuasive argument against the allegations made in the lawsuit. 

Following the news that the lawsuit has been given permission in the UK, Mr Guttmann has been quoted as saying: “I’m heartened that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has given the nod for our groundbreaking claim to proceed to a full trial. This paves the way for millions of consumers, who were left paying for battery replacements or new phone models, to receive the compensation they deserve.”  

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Batterygate has been a blot on Apple’s reputation that has been hanging around for years now, resulting in it having to settle many claims in the US already and pay a £27 million fine in France. Although Apple is a multi-trillion-dollar company with considerable financial and legal resources, it has been (and could still be) quite an expensive episode for the company, plus the fact that it’s paid out (settled) with many in the US could point to the fact that it may lose or may agree a sizeable settlement in the UK.

The UK lawsuit which has just been given the go-ahead, and which rests on whether Apple essentially exploited its market dominance in the UK could, therefore, potentially see 25 million UK iPhone users get compensation without having to take any individual action (it’s an opt-out claim on their behalf) and see Apple possibly pay as much as $1.6 billion ($1 billion / £853 is just the midpoint figure).

With Apple (a company that makes 80 per cent of its revenue from new devices) just launching its new iPhone 15 (which had an overheating issue that required an update), it may be very keen for batterygate to disappear as soon as possible which the settling of this lawsuit may be another major step in achieving. What with the iPhone 15 overheating issue, iPhone 12 sales recently being banned in France over radiation fears, and the newly launched iOS 17 needing quick fix for three critical vulnerabilities, Apple may feel that it needs a break from very public bad news stories.

All that said, however, at the heart of this case are millions of owners whose expensive vital communication devices were suddenly slowed, causing them considerable inconvenience, perhaps causing stress and costing them money to find replacement batteries or even going to expense of buying a new phone. It wouldn’t be the first time that a giant, dominant tech company has been accused of exploiting its market dominance at the expense of customers, and it now remains to be seen whether affected UK customers in this case are finally entitled to compensation and whether Apple will receive another blow to its reputation in the final rounds of batterygate.

The post Featured Article : UK Proceeds With iPhone ‘Batterygate’ Case appeared first on Mear Technology.