compete

The European Union presents its digital sovereignty plan to compete with the US technologically. It’s a wonderful utopia

by

The European commission just announced the European Technological Sovereignty Package. The objective is to reduce European dependence on foreign suppliers of both hardware and software solutions, and to achieve this the plan is simple: ensure that European companies can compete with North American companies. And precisely there lies the problem. For a European cloud. The entire focus of this initiative is on drastically reducing the exposure of the Old Continent to cloud services controlled by American companies. The concern generated by the CLOUD Act and the current geopolitical situation has caused the EU to try to migrate at least part of its critical services to local nodes so that this data always remain under European jurisdiction. The regulation trap. The great Achilles heel of this strategy is once again the way of trying to solve the problem. The European Union is a superpower regulatingbut it is a secondary actor in the field of creation and innovation. Both the US and China do not stop investing billions of dollars from the private sector to develop new AI chips or models. Meanwhile, Brussels responds with AI surveillance agencies and bureaucratic obstacles to the companies it precisely wants to try to promote. Hello Linux. In the document published by the EC, an open source strategy is repeatedly mentioned as an essential weapon to avoid dependence on foreign suppliers. Operating systems such as Linux and developments with this philosophy can undoubtedly provide a basic pillar to be able to develop competitive projects, and of course there are already movements that aim to replace proprietary solutions such as Microsoft Office with open source solutions such as LibreOffice. reality is harsh. The harsh economic and technological reality is that in many segments Europe does not have companies that can compete with the technological giants of the US. One of these segments is precisely that of cloud infrastructure: Amazon, Microsoft and Google dominate this market imperially, and although the intention is to change to “sovereign” clouds; The question is, which one? It is true that there are some companies such as OVH (France) or T-Systems (Germany) that have their own infrastructure, but they are still far from their American rivals. Worrying precedents. In 2020 Europe launched the GAIA-X projecta large cloud platform that was theoretically going to make it possible to face the three large hyperscalers in the US. Dozens of companies were going to get involved in an ambitious project that six years later is in a state that is difficult to define: the official website publishes news frequently and there is a specification and code which, for example, talk about GAIA-X 3.0 ‘Danube’, but it does not seem that at the moment this platform is being used in a practical way. The money comes, but from outside. And while the EU becomes entangled in regulation and ethical debates, the projects that should theoretically boost that digital sovereignty are weakening it. Investment in data centers in Europe is a good example: practically all those that want to be built They are simply delegations of large US technology companies. A wonderful utopia. Digital sovereignty is a logical objective as the world is currently moving, but in the EU they seem to confuse priorities once again. That sovereignty is not gained by prohibiting or regulating foreign technology. You win by making yours so competitive that the rest of the world has no choice but to use it. That requires a lot of work and a lot, a lot of capital investment. Not even the European Court of Auditors trusts for something like this to come to fruition. Image | Rafael Garcin In Xataka | The European Union knows that the US has stopped being a reliable partner: its new agreement with India aims to compensate for it

solar panels that do not compete with the earth, but rather protect it

by

In the vast regions of northern Mexico, where the sun beats down with relentless intensity and water is an increasingly scarce and coveted resource, a quiet revolution is brewing. The growing demand for food, the scarcity of water and the urgency of moving towards clean energies force us to rethink how we manage our resources. In this scenario, a technology emerges that seems to challenge the traditional logic of competition for land: agrivoltaics. Far from choosing between growing food or harvesting light, agrivoltaics strategically combines agricultural production and solar energy generation on the same surface. By installing solar panels elevated above the crops, space is dually used without interrupting agricultural activities. A concept that comes from Germany. This idea, which began to germinate in Germany in the eightiesmanaged to land as a real option in Mexico thanks to the historic collapse in the prices of solar panels during the last decade, which transformed this vision into a financially viable alternative for countries with our climatic characteristics. In the year 2023, The Mexican Agrovoltaic Network (RAMe) is bornan initiative that, according to its own mission statement, seeks to analyze, disseminate and promote these projects by integrating specialists from multiple disciplines. Today, RAMe brings together more than 70 organizations—including universities, companies and rural communities—with a presence in at least 14 states in the country. The urgency to optimize the territory. According to data revealed in Intersolar Mexico 2026For this year alone, conventional photovoltaic developments have been authorized that will devour around 5,000 hectares of land. This shows a voracious need for space for electricity generation that, if not managed properly, could displace primary activities. “Agrivoltaics comprehensively addresses three critical challenges for the country: energy security, water security and food security,” explained Valeria Amezcuapresident of the RAMe. Water is crucial. In Mexico, the agricultural sector consumes about 76% of the available fresh water. This is where solar panels they do their magic: they act as technological umbrellas that moderate high temperatures and protect crops from intense solar radiation. This drastically reduces plant evapotranspiration, helps conserve soil moisture and reduces water demand. The potential for the country is massive. If we look to the southeast, in the Yucatan Peninsula —where electricity consumption is growing above the national average— the data is revealing: Using just between 1% and 2% of the region’s livestock territory would allow for the installation of up to 12,000 MW of solar capacity. Current energy needs would be covered without the need to cut down a single hectare of forest or sacrifice the livestock vocation of the land. lThe challenges from the field to the law. However, bringing the theory to the field involves technical and economic challenges. photovoltaic structures must be modified and installed at a higher height (up to two meters) to allow the passage of tractors and the natural growth of plants. This adaptation increases installation costs between 50% and 100%. Despite the cost barrier, the evidence in the field is promising, since there are successful tests with lettuce, tomato, carrot and chiltepin pepper crops. In addition, RAMe is leading projects with high social impact, such as collaboration with Otomi communities in the State of Mexico, installing panels on greenhouses to generate clean energy that powers drip irrigation systems, saving up to 80% of water. The academic effort in Mexico City with the Sustainable and Educational Agrovoltaic Plot (PASE) also stands out. promoted by UNAM. However, the biggest current brake is bureaucratic. In Mexico, agrivoltaics lacks its own legal figure. Producers and developers face a regulatory labyrinth where they are required to process the same permits as a large-scale power plant, even though the land maintains its original agricultural vocation. This contrasts with countries like Italy, that have already been adapted its legislation to facilitate this dual model. htowards the circular economy. For the model to be truly revolutionary, it is not enough to generate shade and electricity; We must also look towards the earth. The magazine of the National Solar Energy Association (ANES) puts an innovative proposal on the table: integrate solar pyrolysis to manage agricultural waste (stems, stubble, leaves) left after harvest. Solar pyrolysis is a process where biomass decomposes at high temperatures (between 400 and 800 °C) limiting oxygen. Unlike conventional methods, this uses a solar oven (composed of a heliostat and a parabolic concentrator) as a source of pure heat, eliminating the use of fossil fuels. With this you obtain biochar (biochar), a highly stable and porous material that remains in the soil for decades. This biochar is an excellent improver that increases soil fertility, optimizes water retention and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, becoming the perfect ally against climate change and replacing chemical fertilizers. A call to action. The circular agrovoltaic model, anchored in the vital nexus of Water-Energy-Food, is much more than an engineering curiosity. But as the RAMe warnsthere is a latent risk: that the energy transition is purely technological and forgets the people. Changing the origin of electrons from fossil to solar is of little use if it does not improve the quality of life and the economy of peasant families. The development of this sector will inevitably require effective public policies, strategic investment and genuine collaboration between the agricultural, energy and academic sectors. Agrivoltaics is not only a technical alternative to meet clean generation quotas; is an imperative call to action to build a more resilient and equitable future. Mexico has the sun, it has the land and it has the urgency; Now all that is missing is the will to awaken this sleeping giant. Image | EnelGreenPower Xataka | Chile has one of the most valuable skies on Earth. Renewables are putting it on the ropes

It seemed difficult for China to compete with the US as a global tourism power. And yet it’s happening

by

Although tempers have cooled after the war in Iran and the doubts about what impact it will have on the sector, in general international tourism is experiencing its ‘roaring 20s’. Families have come out of the pandemic break wanting to pack their bags and get to know new countries, something that has not taken long to be noticed by the UN tourism observatory, which last year registered an increase of 4% in the flow of international travel, as in the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), which estimates that the sector represents almost 10% of global GDP. The increase, however, has not been equally strong around the world. What’s more, WTTC itself has noted important differences in the two large economies of the sector, the US and China, which could precipitate a surprise historical. I like to travel. The world has emerged from the pandemic with a desire to travel. Many. It is a trend that has already been noted in 2024when pre-COVID levels were recovered, and has continued to consolidate over time, which explains, for example, that Spain is bordering on the historical barrier of the 100 million travelers a year or that Japan gives clear samples of saturation. According to the latest calculations of the WTTC, 2025 was “the best year in history for the sector”, at least as far as economic growth is concerned. Its contribution to world GDP exceeded 10.7 billion eurosabout 10% of the global economy, and supported almost one in ten jobs worldwide. These are compelling data not only because of their scope, but also because of the trend they show: in general the tourism sector is growing more than the international economy. The US slows down. The ‘photo’ is not, however, equally good in everyone. The WTTC technicians have noticed a weight loss in the main economy tourism on the planet, the American one. Although the country governed by Trump remains “the largest travel and tourism market in the world”, the truth is that it is losing market share. The data is resounding: while the sector grew at 4.1% overall, in North America that percentage was four times lower (1%). In fact, it was the “slowest growing region in the world.” The balance was even worse in the US, with an increase of 0.9%. A key fact: 5.5%. “In 2025, eighty million more people took international trips compared to the previous year, although they chose other destinations. The number of American visitors decreased by 5.5% compared to 2024 and spending by international visitors decreased by 4.6%, reaching $176 billion,” they point out those responsible for the WTTC. His analysis joins others that in recent months have warned of a setback in the flow of foreign tourists arriving in the US and the loss of attractiveness in key markets. For example, the country’s Department of Commerce registered in 2025 a drop of 20.9% at the entrance of visitors from Canada. In 2024 it had already registered a decline, but of only 1.3%. Why is it important? For what it means for the American tourism industry. And for its implications in the sector worldwide. As the WTTC reminds us, today the US continues to be the economy that more money moves thanks to tourism and travel, with a notable advantage over the second On the list, China: the US moves at 2.63 trillion dollars while the Asian giant is around 1.75 trillion. How has the US achieved that weight in the sector? Thanks to two legs: the local market, the trips that Americans make when traveling from one city or state to another, and the arrival of foreign visitors. If we look at the latest reports from the US Travel Association and the WTTC, the first leg continues to respond well. In 2025, Americans they accounted for 87% of the country’s tourism business and increased their contribution to the sector. Their spending was 14.3% higher than pre-pandemic levels. Things change, however, when we look at the arrival of tourists from other countries: their flow was reduced by around 2.3% and their spending indicators are also not good when compared to those the country managed before COVID. Losing “hook”. This loss of attractiveness among foreigners coincides with a hardening of the conditions to enter the US and news about arrests in airports, which even led some European embassies to give guidelines to its citizens to avoid surprises with their visas. Another key factor was the international policy deployed by the White House, which strained relations with countries such as Canada and Denmark. The decisions made by the Trump administration soon gave rise to campaigns that advocated boycotting American products, something that was felt in tourism. In January WTTC itself warned Washington that if it finally approved the new requirements it had on the table for ESTA authorization applicants, which included a thorough review of tourists’ online activity, it risked losing just over a third of its visitors. “34% of those surveyed say they are less likely to visit the United States in the next two or three years if the changes are implemented,” he warned. China on the prowl. It is not just that the US sees its market share in international tourism shrink, it is that everything indicates that China will take advantage of this situation to cut positions. “While the US contracts, China grows at a dizzying pace,” explains Gloria Guevarapresident and CEO of WTTC to Bloomberg. “If this continues, in three or four years it will reach the US.” In another interview A recent interview with USA Today even went further and warned that, if the current situation continues, China will end up “replacing” the US as the world’s main tourist market in a matter of four years. today the gap Between both markets it is enormous (the US sector contributes 2.63 trillion dollars and the Chinese 1.75), but Beijing is growing at high speed. WTTC estimates that its tourism sector is growing at a rate of 9.9% and that, unlike what … Read more

Japan was the king of semiconductors in the 80s. Rapidus is its only hope to compete in this market again

by

In the 1980s, Japan did not compete in semiconductors and technology. It was devastating. In 1988, Japanese companies controlled more than half of the world semiconductor market, and NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi and Fujitsu were above giants of the time in the US such as Motorola, Texas Instruments or Intel. That golden era ended with the hyperspecialization that emerged both in South Korea and China and (especially) in Taiwan, but now Japan wants to make a splash again. what has happened. A year ago the technology industry was surprised by the birth of Rapidus Corporationa company born from the alliance of several Japanese giants (Sony, Toyota, SoftBank) with the aim of returning to Japan part of its relevance in the field of semiconductors. The initial plan was very ambitious: they wanted to jump directly to 2 nm by 2027. As we will see later, they have had to delay that forecast, but what has also changed (a lot) is the structure of the company. Japan like main investor. The Japanese government has decided to make Rapidus a centerpiece of national security, and is taking unprecedented control of the company. He will become the largest shareholder, although initially he will only exercise 10% of the voting rights to leave management in private hands. Of course: the State reserves the right to raise that participation above 50% if the company is experiencing difficulties. Total capital has skyrocketed to 420 billion yen ($2.7 billion), when in 2022 the investment did not exceed 50 million. The golden action. The Japanese executive has made use of a legal mechanism by acquiring the so-called “golden shares” with which he can exercise his veto in critical decisions such as changes in management or mergers. The objective is to shield Rapidus against foreign capital acquisitions and guarantee the sovereignty of the project. Which is exactly the same thing we are seeing around the world, of course: each country wants to have its own apples in its basket. Investors who are also clients. Financial support comes from the Japanese government, but also from some large Japanese business groups such as the aforementioned Sony and Toyota or Denso. In total, 32 companies have invested 167.6 billion yen (1.075 billion dollars) and will contribute to this commitment by also being customers of the silicon that Rapidus can produce. They remain just as ambitious… or more. Rapidus CEO Atsuyoshi Koike has adjusted the development plans for his chips, and has delayed the arrival of mass production to March 2028. That’s bad news, but not so much when we discover that the company has plans to go beyond 2nm and is preparing to be able to make 1.4nm chips and even 1 nm. Fast as gunpowder. One of the factors that want to differentiate Rapidus is its promise of rapid delivery of semiconductors. The project aims to automate both the manufacturing, packaging and testing of the chips. These last two are processes with great manual intervention, but at Rapidus they believe they have the key to making them much more autonomous. If they succeed, they could reduce the cycle time of semiconductors by 66% and thus beat even giants like TSMC by the way. Japan turns to chips. Japan’s aspiration is striking, and its Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, seems to be clear that the commitment to this segment must be notable. In fact, Japan is investing a proportion of its GDP (0.71%) in semiconductors much higher than that of the US (0.21%) or Germany (0.41%). Challenges. The strategy, of course, has its critics. Takero Doi, professor at Keio University, point “There are many cases in which public-private investment has led to systems that lacked accountability. It is important to clarify who will lead the project, the private sector or the government.” Plan B. Although the plan with Rapidus is ambitious, the country is actually playing both sides. While boosting its own business, the government has made commitments with TSMC to upgrade its manufacturing plants in Japan. This makes it have a hybrid ecosystem: it attracts the experience and knowledge of the semiconductor giant while on the other hand trying to create a national alternative. Image | Xataka with Freepik In Xataka | Panasonic was the bastion of 100% Japanese TVs after Sony’s step back. Now it has surrendered to China

Telefónica is already selling its minicenters to compete in the era of real time

by

For years they have told us that the future of artificial intelligence lies inincreasingly larger data centersmore powerful and more demanding in energy consumption. And it’s true that computing muscle matters. But there is an equally determining factor that is talked about much less: distance. In the era of real time, it’s not just how much you process that matters, but where you do it. Every millisecond that data takes to travel can disrupt the ability to react instantly. This nuance, apparently technical, is beginning to become a strategic issue for Spanish companies. Telefónica’s bet. The company has activated the commercialization of its edge computing services for B2B clients in five Spanish cities, Madrid, Valencia, Seville, Bilbao and A Coruña, as part of a broader deployment that includes 17 nodes in this initial phase. This means that companies and administrations can now hire these processing and storage capacities close to the point where the data is generated. Closer data. Edge computing involves processing information where it is generated, rather than constantly sending it to distant data centers. As Microsoft explainsis about moving computing and storage capacity to peripheral network locations, such as factories, stores, offices or distributed infrastructures. In practice, local devices and servers analyze and filter data on site and only send what is relevant to central systems. The goal is to reduce latency, alleviate network traffic and enable real-time responses, complementing rather than replacing traditional cloud. The deployment. Telefónica’s Edge Plan plans to reach 17 nodes in this first phase throughout this year. According to the company, 12 infrastructures are already deployed: to the five with active B2B services, other nodes are added in Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Málaga, Palma de Mallorca, Valladolid, Terrassa and Mérida. This same year, the incorporation of Zaragoza, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gijón, Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Santiago de Compostela is planned. Many of these facilities are located in old copper plants converted into Edge centers, adapted to availability and security requirements. Basic and Smart. Telefónica does not sell “edge” in the abstract, but rather two concrete ways of using it. The first is Basic Edge, a stable layer that brings computing capacity closer to the territory and focuses on data control and compliance with national, regional or local regulatory frameworks. Each node acts as an availability zone, allowing applications to be deployed with additional guarantees of continuity and resilience. The second is Smart Edge, which introduces dynamism: selection of the most appropriate node at all times, creation of instances on demand and operation with FTTH or 5G SA connectivity depending on the scenario. Beyond physical infrastructure. Telefónica integrates computing capacity with GPUs into its portfolio for artificial intelligence loads, available as a service and deployed in Edge nodes. This allows companies and institutions to run high-performance models without purchasing their own hardware and maintaining processing within the defined regional environment. The company also mentions the incorporation of RAG agents and capabilities to adapt models to specific contexts. Overall, the strategy seeks to bring AI closer to data under criteria of sovereignty and regulatory compliance. When the millisecond rules. An example helps to dimension the scope of this architecture. Telefónica developed with CAF a pilot that combines Edge and 5G Stand Alone for the railway sector, providing artificial vision solutions that process data close to the asset instead of depending on centralized infrastructure. According to the company, this approach avoids installing processing nodes in each car and keeps responsiveness at levels compatible with real-time operations. Images | Xataka with Gemini 3 Pro In Xataka | We had suspicions, but Sam Altman has confirmed it: AI is just an excuse to fire

Samsung’s new way to compete with OLEDs without using organic pixels

by

Samsung has been building its own strategy for premium televisions for years based on avoiding traditional OLED and exploring alternative paths. First it was QLED, then Mini LED and, more recently and almost reluctantly, QD-OLED. At CES 2026, which has already kicked off, the South Korean firm has added a new milestone to that roadmap with the presentation of your first 130-inch Micro RGB TVa non-OLED technology, neither MicroLEDbut that seeks to differentiate itself by bringing the color directly to the light source. Samsung’s proposal is not just about a new type of panelbut of a strategic move to expand differentiate its premium television catalog beyond OLED, at a time when a good part of the industry is converging on very similar solutions. What is Micro RGB and why it is not just another LED In current LCD televisions, even the most advanced Mini LEDs, the backlight is based on a series of white or blue LEDs arranged in a matrix located behind an LCD panel in which different color filters are combined. The tMicro RGB technology breaks with that approach by changing those white or blue light LEDs for an array of micro-LEDs that directly emit reds, greens and blues independently, each of them with a size of less than 100 micrometers. That is, color is no longer generated by filtering and decomposing white light, but is emitted directly from tiny RGB bulbs located on the panel. This reduces light intensity losses, improves color purity and allows much more precise zone control of light, even though the image still passes through a conventional LCD panel. The result is a color volume much higher than that of traditional LCDs (Samsung claims that it offers complete coverage of the BT.2020 space used in the film industry), and a brightness capacity greater than that offered by OLEDs, which continues to be one of the strong points of LCD compared to organic technologies. Micro RGB vs. QD-OLED: two paths to the premium market The comparison between Micro RGB and OLED (in any of its variants) is inevitable, especially since Samsung already sells televisions QD-OLED like the S95F. At this point, the difference is not so much visual quality as technological approach. OLED and QD-OLED are self-emissive panel technologies, capable of turning off each pixel individually. This guarantees absolute blacks, extreme contrast and a uniformity that is difficult to match because the level of control over lighting is much more precise. Micro RGB, continuing to rely on a backlight system, cannot replicate that behavior: there is always some residual light, especially in very dark scenes, but the tiny size makes that lighting control has improved a lot compared to the MiniLED and even the Micro LED. In exchange, Micro RGB eliminates the risk of burn-in inherent to OLED screens, allowing a higher level of brightness to be achieved and offering greater long-term stability. These are relevant advantages in very large televisions, in intensive use or in bright environments, where OLED continues to have physical limitations, although its performance has greatly improved with the latest generation panels. More than a replacement, Samsung presents Micro RGB as a second premium path, parallel to QD-OLED, with different strengths and aimed at different audiences and formats. One of the challenges of Micro RGB is to manage thousands of RGB emitters efficiently. To this end, Samsung has announced at CES the development of new processing engines such as Micro RGB AI Engineresponsible for analyzing the image in real time and adjusting brightness, color and contrast by area in these new panels. This advanced processing seeks to minimize classic LCD effects such as blooming and improve detail in shadows, without promising absolute blacks of a self-emissive panel. It is a clear example of how the leap in quality no longer depends only on the panel, but on the electronics that govern it. From 130 inches to the living room: the challenge of scaling Samsung already presented in 2025 a television with this technology with a diagonal of 115 inches, but at CES 2026 it has taken a step further in the development of Micro RGB panels, growing to 130 inches. This giant screen format It works more like a technological showcase of the potential of Micro RGB technology with which Samsung gains muscle demonstrating that already in its first panel versions it is capable of reaching sizes where OLED cannot reach, but it is not the final destination of the technology. Samsung has made it clear that its intention is to bring Micro RGB to smaller sizes starting at 55 inches throughout 2026, something that fits with its differentiation strategy compared to other manufacturers focused almost exclusively on OLED. Here appears the main obstacle: the cost of production. As it is a new technology, with high precision RGB micro-LEDs and complex assembly processes, manufacturing a Micro RGB panel is more expensive today than producing a conventional OLED, even than the QD-OLEDs found in the brand’s S90 range. So that Micro RGB has a real commercial journey in household sizes (between 55 and 77 inches), Samsung needs to make manufacturing cheaper and simplify processes. Only then will it be able to compete on price with high-end OLED and Mini LED, something that will not happen immediately. A strategy to not depend on a single technology As its implications are analyzed, Micro RGB fits as part of Samsung’s broader strategy: not to rely on a single panel type in the premium segment. Samsung already competes in QD-OLEDmaintains a strong position in Mini LED and now adds a third option that combines brightness, color volume and scalability in size. Micro RGB does not seek to dethrone OLED, but rather to occupy its own space between premium LCDs and OLED technologies. If Samsung manages to reduce costs and move this technology to smaller sizes, it will not only change its catalog, but also the current balance of a market that seemed to have opted almost entirely for the new advanced OLED technologies. In … Read more

when Group C appeared on the streets because they wanted to compete on the circuits

by

Speaking of cars, my father has always told me “why do you want 200 HP if you can only go 120 km/h?” Someone had to say that to the manufacturers who, in the nineties, registered beasts with more than 600 HP designed for driving on the street. Le Mansbut with which someone could go on a picnic on a Sunday morning. They are the heirs of Group C. And they could only have been possible in one era: the 90s. Supercars with license plate The world of motorsports has a lot of rules when we talk about competition. Logic tells us that technological advances should result in increasingly faster and, above all, powerful cars. However, the organization that is in charge of regulating all this four-wheel motor competition, the FIA, has been imposing a series of rules so that the power does not get out of control. The Lancia Delta S4, the Ford RS200, the Peugeot 205 T16 and the Audi Quattro, legendary group B rallies An example we saw it in the rally world. The category is extreme, with cars that accelerate like a racing motorcycle and display enormous speed. However, in the 80s, manufacturers began to modify both the engine and the chassis, taking it to the extreme and creating spectacular machines. Accelerations from 0 to 100 in two seconds on land. It was truly crazy. In five years, cars advanced a lot and what had to happen happened: uncontrolled power, maximum competition and pressure, insufficient safety measures and some negligence caused fatal accidents. One of the most remembered is that of Portugal in March 1986, when Joaquim Santos’ RS200 lost control and ran into a crowd, killing three spectators instantly, putting a fourth in the hospital and injuring around thirty people. In May of that year, those who died were those who were driving the car. Toivonen and Cresto lost control and fell off a cliff. The FIA ​​decided that would cut off the development of Group B because, directly, it had gone too far. And if I tell you all this nonsense it is because, in parallel to this extreme development of rally cars, Group C was also emerging. It was in 1982 when this group was introduced, designed for the competition of purely prototype sports cars. While in other categories the FIA ​​limited the engine displacement, braking power, in Group C the limitation came due to fuel. They were endurance racing cars. and control was achieved through 100 liters of capacity with a minimum of five refueling stops every 1,000 kilometers. That allowed 600 liters per 1,000 km. A stupid thing. The FIA’s intention was for manufacturers to limit themselves to improving power through turbocharging. For 20 years, Group C cars put on a show at endurance races and Le Mans, with legendary machines and racing technologies. Formula 1 who were adapting to that competition. The result? Perfect machines that reached average speeds above 200 km/h in Le Mans and peaks of 330 km/h in the Mulsanne straight. But after two glorious decades, the FIA ​​did what it does best: change everything and distort the competition. Within six years, the organization announced that it wanted non-turbo engines and races of 430 km at most (when before they were 1,000). That completely distorted the competition and the meaning of Group C. Furthermore, although the new engines would supposedly be more economical, developing them from scratch would be a great effort for the teams, so they abandoned them, and before the start of the 1993 season, the competition and the category were cancelled. This is how the GT1 was born and manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan, Porsche, Jaguar and Mercedes found themselves with hundreds of millions that were going to waste. And all this context for the girito: unless they took advantage of those supercars that, with a couple of changes, they could register and sell as a street car, taking advantage to finance the development of the cars of the newborn GT1. The Mercedes CLK that had nothing CLK, the most exclusive Nissan and the flying Porsche Taking advantage of this technology and development, the companies used the prototypes created for Le Mans to give life to a series of street supercars that shared many characteristics. They used to be carbon fiber monocoques, they had very high-power engines with sophisticated electronic management, transmission made for racing, active aerodynamics in some cases, very low weight and, in some cases, space for a cabin suitcase. The Porsche 962 When brands like Nissan, Toyota or Mercedes raced in Group C, they didn’t need to manufacture vehicles with street versions: they only focused on the most untamable beasts. However, heThe GT1 category required the production of some registrable units before validating the racing prototypes. The companies took advantage of some regulatory loopholes to get racing, but that need to have a street version caused wild racing cars to circulate directly on the streets. Our colleagues from MotorPassion They have reviewed some of the most representative specimens of this crazy period, and some stories are unbelievable. Heirs of the Porsche 962 Dauer 962 Le Mans It was one of the most representative cars at Le Mans and its chassis was taken as a reference by three manufacturers. One was the Dauer 962 Le Mansa car modified with the help of Porsche itself that had Kevlar panels, a flat floor for stability, a second leather seat, hydraulic suspension and a trunk in the front. The engine had 730 HP and, as it was one of the firstachieved approval by producing only 13 copiesnot the 25 street prices that would be requested later. How did they manage to homologate a racing car so that it could circulate on public roads? Through a hydraulic suspension that allowed the car to be raised up to 10 centimeters and, after passing some emissions and crash tests, the German ITV gave the go-ahead. There were some more heirs from 962, such as Schuppan 962R of which only … Read more

November has been a black month for consoles. They no longer compete against each other, but against TikTok

by

November 2025 is a month that many video game lovers have “celebrated” as the twentieth anniversary of Xbox 360. Pure nostalgiabecause beyond memory, November 2025 will be remembered by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft as a black month. The reason? It is the worst November for console sales since, precisely, November 2005. In the recent report from Circana we can see a figure very striking: 27%. That is how much spending by American consumers – the largest market for video games – has fallen during November of this year compared to November 2024. Another fact: with 1.6 million consoles sold that month, it is the worst November since 1995, the year of launch of PlayStation. It is relevant because it was released a year ago PS5 Pro and this month of may nintendo switch 2but the high prices of both machines and video games, which have experienced a rise in recent months, have not been able to convince players. Not even on Black Friday. And the key here may not be that thousands of video games are released every month or the price of the console itself. The key may be that the console war has ended and a very different one has begun: the attention war. Console war? War of attention At Xataka we have discussed the topic on more than one occasion. Our ability to focus is broken. in a task due to the enormous amount of stimuli to which we are subjected. Everything competes for our attention. Matt Booty, one of the Xbox heavyweights, said A few months ago Xbox’s competition was not PlayStation. Neither does Nintendo. The competition was TikTok. It was not a mistake, since Satya Nadella, absolute boss of the American company, also stated that “the competition of video games is not other video games, but short format video.” The interesting thing is that it is not an unreasonable statement. To Netflix, especially as a result of the final season of ‘Stranger Things’you are being accusing of producing empty series so that people have them in the background because they assume that they will be consuming short videos on their mobile phones while watching the series. That’s why there are short dialogues and a long opening exposition at the beginning of the season so you can “forget” about having to follow anything else. We are in a moment in which we spend the day unfocused, without being able look at your phone every 15 minutes as a reflex act and where we have to look for strategies so that multitasking and division of attention does not affect us. Matthew Bell, one of the most influential analysts of the video game market, already told it a few months ago in his book ‘The State of Video Gaming 2025‘. In your radiographypointed out how the video game industry no longer competes against itself, but against a tremendously fragmented digital entertainment ecosystem. Our time is finite. If we take away the hours of work, rest, transportation and food, we have little time for the rest. In the United States, there are studies who do not agree on how much time an average user spends on TikTok. The data varies between 58 minutes and 95, but whatever it is, then there is YouTube, Instagram or Facebook. This, in addition, is having cognitive consequences: have less attention span than a fish has. If in 2020 the average human attention span was twelve seconds, now it is eight. A fish pays attention for nine seconds, and you have to pay attention to a video game. And the threat of TikTok? The AI There are those who are catching this situation on the fly and that is why microdramas have appeared. At first, the fever of series with one-minute episodes occurred in Chinabut is climbing. And it is logical that you think: if the competition for consoles is TikTok, who is TikTok’s competition? The answer is also easy: artificial intelligence. Those minutes in which users They use ChatGPT as if it were their psychologista virtual friend or even a coupleare minutes that are not spent on TikTok. It is still something as accessible as opening an app, exactly the same as on TikTok, but perhaps waiting for that response from an AI that is characterized by being tremendously flattering is more comforting for our brain than the umpteenth quick video created with… AI –the slope-. Because they are social networks, video platforms, consoles, artificial intelligence and even the metaverse – someday, if that -, the objective is the same: to keep us glued to the screen. And we cannot attend to everything. In Xataka | An unknown console has overtaken Xbox in sales: it is just the beginning of more ambitious plans

Since Iryo and Ouigo compete with Renfe, we have had ultra-cheap high-speed tickets. Everything has an end

by

There is a problem in the supply of high-speed trains in Spain. We believed that with the arrival of competition to Renfe we ​​would see ticket prices reduced. This has been the case during the last four years and in different regions, but now the three operators have begun to raise their rates in most corridors during the third quarter of 2025, according to the latest report of the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC). The change of trend. In the Madrid-Barcelona corridor, the busiest in the country, prices rose by an average of 25% compared to the same period in 2024. Iryo led the increases with an increase of 52.9%, placing the average ticket at 63.82 euros. Renfe AVE raised its fares by 13.3% to 70.58 euros, while Ouigo, traditionally the cheapest option, increased its prices by 20.2% to reach 51.86 euros on average. The context that explains the rise. The withdrawal of Avlo, Renfe’s ‘low cost’ brand, from the Madrid-Barcelona corridor in September after cracks were detected in the bogies of its Avril trains, has reduced the supply of tickets economical on the most popular route. This has caused the remaining operators to adjust their rates upwards. Despite the increase in prices, tickets are still 26% cheaper than before the liberalization of the sector in 2020, as indicated by the CNMC. The exception: Andalusia. In this Autonomous Community, the evolution is different. The entry of Ouigo in January 2025 on the Madrid-Seville and Madrid-Málaga/Granada routes caused a price war which has kept rates down. On the Madrid-Málaga route, only Iryo raised prices (+2.6%), while Renfe AVE lowered them by 8.9% and Avlo by 15.3% to compete with the 32.54 euros on average offered by the French operator. In Madrid-Seville, the average price fell by 2.8% despite the fact that individual operators such as Iryo (+12.5%) and Renfe AVE (+0.9%) did make their tickets more expensive. The Levantine corridor. Regarding routes to the Valencian Community, these show moderate increases. In Madrid-Valencia, prices rose by 1.3% to 30.56 euros on average, the cheapest ticket on the entire network. In Madrid-Alicante, the increase was 1.5% to 37.96 euros. Iryo was the one that increased its fares the most on both routes (with increases of 24.6% and 23.9% respectively), while Ouigo maintained its low price strategy with slight reductions. The thing is about profitability. The Minister of Transport, Óscar Puente, has been publicly demanding this price increase in recent months, going so far as to accuse Ouigo of operating at losses and dragging Renfe into an unsustainable dynamic. And while the rest of the operators have been gaining ground, we are now at a point where they are looking for the economic viability of their operations, and that is where the price increases come in. The balance of passengers. Despite price increases, demand remains robust. High speed will reach almost 40 million travelers in 2024, 77% more than in 2019, before liberalization. In the third quarter of 2025, routes such as Madrid-Málaga/Granada (+17.7%), Madrid-Seville (+13.2%) and Madrid-Alicante (+8.9%) reached record passenger numbers. Only Madrid-Barcelona registered a slight decrease of 0.3%, possibly weighed down by the withdrawal of Avlo and the increase in fares. The future of the sector. After four years of aggressive offers by the rest of the high-speed operators, the sector seems to be entering a phase of maturity in which it seeks to attract travelers without losing sight of the sustainability of the business. Renfe maintains a market share of 62% in most corridors, although in Madrid-Valencia it is already at 50%. It will be very interesting to know the figures in the coming quarters to know how the panorama evolves. Cover image | Jose Garcia Nieto In Xataka | High speed in Madrid is at risk of collapsing. And that’s why Adif wants to send her to Parla

Sam Altman is trying to buy his own rocket company to compete with SpaceX. The key: data centers

by

The rivalry between Sam Altman and Elon Musk has just reached its highest point: space. And all so that OpenAI can deploy its own data centers in space. The news. As revealed by the Wall Street Journalthe CEO of OpenAI has been exploring the purchase of Stoke Space, a Seattle startup that develops reusable rockets, with the goal of building data centers in space. Although talks with Stoke Space cooled in the fall, the move confirms a trend we’ve been observing for months: Silicon Valley is outgrowing the Earth to fuel AI. Sam’s plan. According to the Journal’s sources, Sam Altman was not looking for a launch provider, but rather an investment that would ensure OpenAI majority control of Stoke Space. Stoke Space, founded in 2020 by former Blue Origin engineers, is developing a fully reusable rocket called ‘Nova’ to compete with SpaceX’s Falcon 9. So that. Altman maintains a tense rivalry with Elon Musk, so the logic of this move would be to reduce OpenAI’s dependence on Musk’s rockets in the event that it decided to deploy servers in space. But above that there is a purely energetic motivation. The computing demand for AI is so insatiable that the environmental consequences of keeping it on Earth will be unsustainable. In certain orbits, however, solar energy is available 24/7 and the vacuum of space offers an infinite heat sink to cool equipment without wasting water. The fever of space data centers. Altman is not alone in this race. What until recently seemed like an eccentricity has become a serious project for big technology companies: And what does Musk say? The irony of Altman pursuing his own rocket company is that the industry’s undisputed leader, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, already has the infrastructure in place. While his competitors design prototypes and seek financing, Musk has cut off the debate with his usual forcefulness: in the face of the discussion about the need to build new orbital data centers, He assured that there is no need to reinvent the wheel: “It will be enough to scale the Starlink V3 satellites… SpaceX is going to do it.” Images | Brazilian Ministry of Communications | Village Global In Xataka | Building data centers in space was the new hot business. Elon Musk just broke it with a tweet

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.