giants

There was a time when Japan was the king of TVs. All its giants have ended up surrendering to the evidence

by

Not so many years ago, talking about Japanese televisions was talking about the kings of the market. Not so much for volume but for quality. The Sony Trinitron were (and still are) to play retro video games) legendary, but there were the technologies of Sharp, Toshiba or the plasma from Panasonic. However, first South Korea and now China have run over Japanese brands. And Panasonic is the latest “victim.” And it may be for the best. The Panasonic case. Bluntly: Panasonic, which was once on the podium of the great Japanese manufacturers, has just announce that the Chinese company skyworth From now on, it will be in charge of producing and selling its televisions. At the catalog presentation event for this year, representatives of the Japanese brand they commented that the new partner “will lead sales, marketing and logistics while Panasonic provides expertise and quality assurance.” Speaking to FlatpanelsHD, Panasonic said Skyworth will take care of everything, but the resulting product will still be one that will have the “Panasonic” name. Turn towards China. The company had been outsourcing the production and functions of its models for years. mid-range and entrybut now that loss of identity is complete. With the move, the firm hopes to once again become one of the largest in both Europe and the United States, and the curious thing is that this announcement comes just a few weeks after Sony will outsource the production of its televisions to TCL. It is a symbolic turn because the Japan that previously led the technological conversation was gradually eclipsed by South Korea, Taiwan and, now, China. Both TCL and Skyworth are Chinese companies and, although TCL is much better known, Skyworth is not exactly small. Headquartered in Shenzhen, it has intermittently strained in the conversation of the main television manufacturers Android TV. It makes… sense. In statements to FlatpanelsHD, both companies will jointly develop the high-end OLED TVsand the movement has a very clear reading: it is a win-win for both companies, but as in the case of Sony-TCL, one wins -much- more than the other. Chinese companies have made a very strong investment in recent years in plants capable of producing an enormous quantity of large-inch panels. Televisions are manufactured from what is known as “mother glass”plates that, the larger the size, the more derived large-inch televisions will be produced. And if more televisions can be produced at a time, they can be sold at a lower price. TCL has state-of-the-art factories focused on that large-inch production, which helps explain why they sell 65- and 75-inch models at ridiculous prices. Therefore, with these associations, the Japanese hope that the muscle of the Chinese will help them achieve greater penetration. But, of course, it is undeniable that the names ‘Sony Bravia’ and ‘Panasonic’ are much more powerful than those of any Chinese brand, and now it is TCL and Skyworth that can exploit it in the market. Tears in the rain. In the end, as they say, of those muds, these muds. Panasonic, which was once one of the spearheads in terms of television technology thanks to plasma, had not made much of a splash for years in a conversation dominated by LG, Samsung and, by leaps and bounds, the Chinese. They were, along with Sony, the stronghold of a Japanese industry that had already seen how giants like Sharp, Pioneer or Toshiba they stayed in the gutter to be, in some cases, rescued by… Chinese companies (Toshiba by Hisense) or Taiwanese (Sharp by Foxconn). As they say, ‘mistakes were made’ and Panasonic held on for too many years to a plasma technology which was impressive, but also very expensive to produce and a huge ship that could not correct course when better LCD and OLED panels began to come out. As we say, we have to wait to see what this translates into in terms of market share, but in Japan it is a blow. Only with the joint venture of Sony and TCL, esteem that 50% of the Japanese market will be controlled by Chinese capital. The last pride they could hold on to was Panasonic. In Xataka |

Two Spanish space giants have joined forces to take 5G defense satellites into space: PLD Space and Sateliot

by

Two Spanish companies they have sealed an agreement to launch new generation satellites without depending on any other foreign company. In Europe we have been with the run run of technological sovereignty. This agreement is a perfect example of this, and also a milestone for Spain if the project ends up materializing. The agreement. PLD Space, manufacturer of the Miura 5 rocket based in Elche, and Sateliot, a telecommunications satellite operator based in Barcelona, ​​have signed a contract to launch two satellites from Sateliot’s Tritó constellation aboard the Miura 5. The launch is scheduled for the last quarter of 2027, expectedly on the fourth commercial flight of the Elche rocket, and will do so from the Kourou Space Port, in French Guiana. Each satellite weighs about 160 kilos and will be launched on a dedicated mission, without sharing space with other operators. Why is it important? This agreement is presented as the first entirely Spanish private space mission, with satellites designed, manufactured and operated in the country, launched using a rocket also of Spanish origin. And the interesting thing about the project is that it would cover the entire value chain of the sector (manufacturing, launch, operations and commercial exploitation) without foreign intermediaries. Although the European Union has been trying for years reduce your dependence on operators like SpaceXthis alliance fits directly into this context. What are Tritó satellites? The Tritó constellation is a significant evolution of the current satellites that Sateliot has, weighing 15 kg and dedicated exclusively to the Internet of Things (IoT). In this case, the new Tritó have greater capacity and will combine IoT connectivity with direct device-satellite communication (D2D), including data, voice and video through 5G. Marco Guadalupi, CTO of Sateliot, counted to El Español that one of its key points is that they will be able to “establish the connection when the device is in the pocket”, being key for emergencies, natural disasters and defense applications. The risk they assume. Guadalupi does not hide that it is “a risky mission.” The Miura 5 is a new rocket, whose first launch test is scheduled for the end of this year, and its reliability has yet to be demonstrated in real flight. “We are crazy and we know what we want,” I was joking Guadalupi himself in the interview with the media. The Sateliot team claims to have visited the PLD Space integration and testing facilities on three occasions before signing. In exchange for the risk, they get something that few options on the market offer: a dedicated mission, without competing for space, and the flexibility to adapt flight conditions to their specific needs. Review. Last November, PLD Space closed financing of 169 million euros through ESA’s European Launcher Challenge, backed almost entirely by Spain, for launch contracts and improvements to the Miura 5. Sateliot, for its part, has plans to deploy up to 100 satellites in 2028 and aims to reach revenues of 1 billion euros in 2030, according to they count from Reuters. Among its shareholders is Indra, with 4% of the capital. The agreement with PLD Space also occurs while Sateliot is opening market in India. Jaume Sanpera, CEO of the company, traveled to the Asian country coinciding with the announcement, where the company already has headquarters and sees potential for a future business in which they offer connectivity in remote areas. What’s coming Before the satellites board the Miura 5, Sateliot plans to launch a prototype of the Tritó platform in mid-2027 to validate the payload. The more capable commercial satellites would be integrated into the rocket in the final stretch of that same year. Regarding the total number of satellites they hope to put into orbit, Guadalupi counted that “there will be hundreds.” Sateliot’s intention is to centralize launches to simplify logistics, and although they do not rule out other suppliers, they aim to continue working with PLD Space. Cover image | Satellite In Xataka | A new “solar system” has just been discovered. There’s just one problem: it shouldn’t exist.

The valuations of the AI ​​giants are sustained because we want to believe in them

by

In the wonderful The Big Shortthe characters discover that the mortgage market subprime It’s a kind of house of cards. The data doesn’t add up and the valuations don’t make sense, but the system still works because everyone pretends it works. Until it stops working. That dynamic summarizes very well what is happening in the technology sector. OpenAI follows palming money for each consultation What do we do to ChatGPT but it’s already worth half a billion. AI startups increase their valuations tenfold even though they have no real recurring revenue. The funds They continue opening fat rounds for what they continue to be wrappers of AI whose only technical difference with the competition is the marketing paragraph. A domain ending in ‘.ai’ serves to make the investor take his back off the backrest and whisper to the person next to him. Nobody asks about EBITDA. Nobody expects profitability in five years. Not in ten. You have to keep turning the crank. This, to another extent, We already experienced it with the dotcom bubble. What has changed is that we have twisted the loop of self-deception. There was more naivety in the ’90s: Too many people actually believed that Pets.com would revolutionize the dog food trade. Now almost everyone senses that this is more fragile than it seems, but no one can afford to be the first to say it. Because whoever says it, loses. The CEO who admits his “AI integration” is just a wrapper of OpenAI with little uniqueness is left without the next round. The fund that does not invest in AI remains like a dinosaur. The CTO who says “this is cool but it’s not improving our productivity” risks being replaced by someone more enthusiastic: in this industry, a frown sells little. So many nod, many applaud, many pretend to see the complete revolution when perhaps they are only seeing the beginning. Meanwhile, we are often seeing how the distance between narrative and reality continues to widen. There are companies laying off employees justifying it as a “strategic reorganization towards AI”, when in reality they have burned capital on technology that does not work for them or at least does not pay off. Products are launched by releasing pigeons, fail six months later, and no one mentions the corpse because they are already busy announcing the next one. The metric of success is sometimes no longer “this solves a real problem” but rather “this got us another round of funding,” when not “this earned me a promotion.” The curious thing is that this economy of belief can be sustained for many years. As long as there is liquidity and rates allow for financing losses indefinitely, as long as no one has clear incentives to break the consensus, the theater continues. But there are two problems: ANDThis dynamic destroys the sector’s ability to distinguish the real from the performative.. When much of the discourse is narrative and few ask about fundamentals, companies that really build something valuable can become difficult to distinguish from those that only know how to raise capital. Good engineers and good products sometimes get hidden amidst a lot of extremely well-funded mediocrity. This economy constantly needs new believers. Like other speculative cycles, it works as long as there are more people entering than leaving. And if the music stops—when rates change, when investors demand tangible returns, or when customers stop paying on promises—there may not be enough chairs. Here is the fundamental difference with the dotcom bubble: AI does have real and demonstrable value. ChatGPT solves specific problems, Claude Code development skyrockets and models improve quarter by quarter. Nobody believes at this point that they are vaporware like thirty years ago. There are companies using AI to improve margins, accelerate processes and automate tasks that previously required entire teams. The issue is that The gap between the value that technology generates today and the capital it absorbs is considerable. And as long as that gap exists, the sector works more by consensus than by fundamentals. It’s not that everything is smoke, it’s that there is too much capital chasing too few profitable applications in the short term. No one knows when the adjustment will come, if it ever comes. AI may end up justifying all bets and this will be seen in retrospect as the moment when the giants of tomorrow were built. Some of this capital may even end up funding breakthroughs that truly change entire industries. Many cities today have subways because someone more than a century ago decided to build tunnels and lay roads, assuming brutal costs without an immediate return. At the time it may have seemed like financial madness, but thanks to that today we don’t go by bus. The difference is that this was public money betting on the long term. This is private capital waiting to multiply in less than a decade. And that difference matters, because it changes the incentives: whoever builds public infrastructure can wait two generations to see the return. Whoever raises a Series B round needs metrics in the next quarter. So the optimistic scenario exists, but it coexists with another less rosy one: that a large part of the sector is playing the same game (believing because it is necessary to believe, investing because everyone invests) without really knowing where the bottom is. For now, we just keep painting the ships red and acting like that makes them fly faster. Maybe I will. Maybe not. We’ll know when someone dares to check if the painting was what mattered. In Xataka | AI needs 650 billion a year to sustain itself. The problem is who will put them on the table Featured image | Xataka

Saudi Arabia is looking for someone to build its new high-speed train. And a battalion of Spanish giants are going to compete

by

Saudi Arabia has put one of the most ambitious railway projects in the Middle East on the table, and the response from the global industry has been especially strong: 145 international companies have officially expressed their interest for participating in the new high-speed line that will connect Riyadh with Qiddiya, a newly created city dedicated to tourism and entertainment. And as it could not be otherwise, among the candidates stand out several Spanish companies with great experience when it comes to cooperating in Saudi projects. What exactly is this project. It is about the Qiddiya High-Speed ​​Railalso known as Q-Express, a high-speed rail line that will link King Salman International Airport and the King Abdullah Financial District (KAFD) in Riyadh with Qiddiya City, according to the Royal Commission for Riyadh City (RCRC). The trains will reach speeds of up to 250 km/h and the intention is for them to complete the journey in about 30 minutes. Qiddiya is one of Saudi Arabia’s five official mass tourism-oriented gigaprojects and is expected to occupy some 376 square kilometers. The city will include 12 amusement parksa Formula 1 circuit and is projected to house 500,000 inhabitants. Several Spanish companies interested. Between companies that have shown interest There are Spanish names with weight in the railway sector. CAF and Talgo appear in the category of manufacturers of rolling stock and railway systems, where they compete with giants such as Alstom, Siemens Mobility, Hitachi Rail or Stadler Rail. Renfe and Alsa, for their part, are among the 12 interested railway operators, along with Deutsche Bahn, Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane or SNCF. In construction, FCC Construction and Copasa stand out, while in technical consulting, Sener, Ayesa, Idom and Typsa are present, competing with international firms such as Aecom, AtkinsRéalis or Systra. Previous experience in the country. Several of these Spanish companies are not new to Saudi Arabia. Some were part of the consortium that developed the well-known AVE to Mecca (Haramain train), which connects the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Currently, Renfe operates precisely that high-speed line. The president of the company, Álvaro Fernández de Heredia, visited Saudi Arabia just a few weeks ago to participate in an international railway meeting, and where reaffirmed the company’s commitment to collaborate with Saudi Arabia Railways on new projects. For its part, Alsa It already has a guaranteed presence in Qiddiya: a €500 million contract was recently awarded to operate the city’s future buses. Fierce world-class competition. He complete list of interested parties gives clues to the magnitude of the project. The 68 main contractors include companies from China (eight companies, including China Railway Construction Corporation and Aviation Industry Corporation of China), Turkey (with Gülermak, Kalyon or Yapı Merkezi), Italy (Webuild and Saipem), South Korea (Hyundai Engineering and Samsung C&T), France (Bouygues Travaux Publics), India (Larsen & Toubro) and Portugal (Mota-Engil), among other countries. 16 capital investors and 23 design and project management consultancies have also shown interest. How it is going to develop. The project will be executed under a public-private partnership model (PPP), as announced by the RCRC in collaboration with the National Center for Privatization and the QIC. The registration period where companies could show interest in the project opened on September 12 and closed on October 12. Although it was initially planned to be developed under a conventional model, the Saudi authorities finally opted for a public-private collaboration scheme. What comes next. The development includes two phases. The first will connect Qiddiya with KAFD and King Khalid International Airport. The second phase will extend from a development known as North Pole, which includes the Public Investment Fund’s two-kilometre-high tower, to New Murabba, King Salman Park, central Riyadh and the Industrial City south of Riyadh. In addition, the 65-kilometer Riyadh metro line 7 will also connect the capital with Qiddiya City in the future. With so many high-level companies competing for this megaproject, now it’s time to find out which consortiums manage to position themselves as favorites in the bidding. Cover image | HE In Xataka | The electrification of the railway passes through Valencia: the Stadler plant will be in charge of building 200 hybrid locomotives

They sit at the table of the giants

by

He BYD test track in Zhengzhou It has a 29-meter interior dune certified by Guinness, a 70-meter pool for its amphibious cars, layouts off-road and an impeccable asphalt circuit to step on the accelerator. All designed to impress. And it works. More than a hundred journalists from America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa were summoned to witness an exhibition of strength. There were no big product announcements. The message was different: BYD no longer plays in the league of aspirants. He sits at the table of the giants, he knows it and enjoys it calmly. If the circuit was the muscle, Stella Li was the brain exposed to the media. During the session with three dozen international journalists, the Xataka Legend 2025 He responded bluntly about tariffs, global strategy, competition with Tesla and the future of the combustion engine. And it did so from a position of unprecedented confidence: BYD has sold more than 3.7 million “new energy” vehicles (NEV) as of October 2025. It is the world’s number one in BEV and PHEV combined. In September, it reached third place in global automobile sales – all technologies included –, only behind Toyota and Volkswagen. “Our growth is not a coincidence. We are a technology company that manufactures cars, not the other way around“Li emphasized during his previous speech. BYD employs more than 120,000 engineers and files dozens of patent applications every day. Europe, tariffs and the factory that changes everything When asked about European tariffs – which penalize Chinese electric companies – Li was direct: “The Hungarian factory will be operational at the end of this year. The impact of the tariffs will be zero in the short term. We will be a European manufacturer.” It was a response loaded with symbolism. BYD does not avoid the trade conflict but neutralizes it with local investment. And it is not the only front. Li confirmed that after Hungary will come plants in Brazil, Türkiye and other strategic markets. The lesson is clear: BYD builds where it sells. But Europe will not be just battery and volume. Li announced that YangWang, BYD’s luxury brand, will arrive in 2026, although without specifying models. “We want to bring premium PHEV technology to the market,” he said. “We are still defining which model will be first, but it will be something that the competition cannot ignore.” The veiled reference to the German BMW-Mercedes-Audi trident did not go unnoticed. One of the most interesting revelations of the session was BYD’s dual strategy in Europe. The brand started with a 100% electric bet (BEV), but now openly embraces PHEV technology as a workhorse. “In China, more than 50% of NEV vehicle sales are PHEVs,” Li said. “In some cities, it exceeds 60%. Consumers choose technology DMi because it is better: electric autonomy for everyday life, a combustion engine for long trips, and lower fuel consumption than any conventional hybrid.” The technology that changes the rules DMi 5.0 technology allows consumption of 2.6 liters per 100 km and combined ranges of up to 2,100 km with a single tank and one charge. In Europe, the Signal 6 DMi offers 1,500 km. “It is the perfect solution for markets where charging infrastructure is still limited,” he added. Is the combustion engine going to disappear? “Not in the next few years,” he answered without hesitation. “But in the future. Once more people experience DMi or BEV, the fate will be clear.” Asked about Tesla and the race for world number one, Li avoided the confrontation: “We are not obsessed with rankings. Tesla focuses on pure BEVs, we offer more options. “We believe in coexistence, even cooperation.” In fact, BYD already supplies batteries to other manufacturers. “We are not just a car brand,” Li recalled. “We produce batteries for energy storage, electronic components… You use BYD products in your daily life without knowing it.” That diversification is your secret weapon. The usual thing is to depend on external suppliers, but BYD controls the entire value chain: Blade batteries, motors, electronic platforms, semiconductors… Vertical integration as immunity to supply interruptions. Regarding the brutal price war in China, Li was cautious but realistic: “The competition is bloody. But BYD does not compete only on price. We compete on technology, experience, ecosystem.” How many Chinese brands will survive? “Too many are competing now. I don’t know how many will be left. But I know that competition makes us better.” The issue of national competition is not trivial: there are a brutal number of brands and it seems unlikely that all of them will have a place in a future that points to consolidation thanks to mergers, acquisitions of smaller ones and perhaps others that cannot survive directly. The record that is not just marketing If there were any doubts about BYD’s ambitions in the premium segment, the YangWang U9 Xtreme put them to rest. The electric supercar reached 496.22 km/h on the ATP Automotive Testing Circuit Papenburg (Germany) in September, becoming the fastest production car on the planetdisplacing Bugatti. Driving it in Zhengzhou, although limited to a maximum peak of 160 km/h for safety, was brutal. Total silence, instant thrust, space launch feeling. It is a car that It has a profit above its own sales: It serves to demonstrate that BYD can manufacture whatever it sets its mind to. A few years ago BYD manufactured cheap cars of dubious quality, today they are behind that missile called YangWang U9 and its record: it is the fastest production car in the world thanks to its 496.22 km/h. Image: Xataka. Among all the technologies on display, one stood out for its potential impact: Flash Charging, BYD’s ultra-fast charging infrastructure. With a voltage of 1,000 V and batteries integrated into the stations, the system promises up to 2 km of autonomy per second of charging. And in five minutes, 400 km. “Recharging will be as fast as refueling,” Li promised. Of course, with double hose. And here comes the play: BYD will install … Read more

either they create giants, or China wins

by

Orange has confirmed that it can simultaneously undertake the purchase of 50% of Masorange and its proportional share of Altice’s assets in France without affecting the dividend. Or so he claims. Laurent Martínez, financial director, has said it unequivocally: both operations are viable while maintaining “profitability for the shareholder as an absolute priority.” Why it is important. Five years ago, any European operator that had announced two large acquisitions in parallel would have suffered an immediate stock market punishment. Now the market digests it. It is the first major sign that the consolidation of the sector has ceased to be a regulatory taboo and has become an accepted strategic necessity. There are even signs that Europe begins to give way after decades of anti-concentration dogma. Between the lines: Orange is looking for customers and spectrum in France, not duplicate infrastructure. In Spain, the Masorange shareholder agreement blocks any movement until April 2026. But CEO Christel Heydemann has been clear: “There is no rush.” They can wait because they have financial muscle. That capacity for patience is, in itself, a competitive advantage. The context. Europe has 34 main operators for 450 million inhabitants. The United States has three for 335 million. China, four for 1.4 billion. Proportionally, Europe has eight times more operators than the United States and 27 times more than China. The result: compressed margins, insufficient investment and a 41% drop in the sector’s market capitalization between 2015 and 2023. Unexpected twist. Teresa Ribera, new European Commissioner for Competition, said in spring that the rules will “evolve” to allow for greater scale. It’s a radical departure from her predecessor, Margrethe Vestager, who systematically blocked mergers for a decade. The Draghi Report has explicitly called for facilitating consolidation. Something is moving in the bureaucracy. Marking agenda. Marc Murtra, president of Telefónica, has led a manifesto signed by twenty European telecommunications companies calling for drastic changes in merger regulations. It’s not rhetoric: Telefónica has liquidated its businesses in Latin America to concentrate on Europe with the addition of Brazil. Murtra has declared that the teleco “will be active in a future scenario of European mergers.” They want to be much more than the large Spanish telecom. It’s been rumored for months its interest in taking over Vodafone Spain and with the German 1&1. Digi has even sounded. Yes, but. Not two of the three large Spanish operators can finance a state-of-the-art fiber network without external help. PremiumFiber, presented by Masorange and Vodafone A few days ago, it needed the Singapore sovereign fund with 25% of the capital. That is the real picture: without consolidation, European telecommunications companies will increasingly depend on Asian capital to maintain competitive infrastructures. The big question. Will Europe allow its operators to consolidate now, while they still have muscle, or will it wait for American and Chinese giants to absorb the European market piecemeal? Orange has shown that it can play on two boards at once. It remains to be seen whether regulators are going to let the game continue. In Xataka | Telefónica wants to lead Europe. But he resists turning Spain into his letter of introduction Featured image | Xataka, operators

Ten banking giants are going after stablecoins. They are trying not to miss the digital money train

by

A consortium of ten of the world’s largest banks, including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Santander and BNP Paribas, have announced that they are exploring creating their own stablecoins, according to Reuters. Why is it important. It is the first time that a consortium of this magnitude has officially reacted to the threat posed by stablecoins (stablecoins) for your business. What has happened. The consortium has made this announcement regarding this development. They would be digital assets anchored 1:1 to the main G7 currencies (dollar, euro, pound, etc.) and, key, they would work on public blockchains, the same technology used by the crypto world. The advertisement seeks to stand up to the absolute dominance of Tethera single company that currently manages a volume of 179 billion dollars outside the traditional banking system. The small print. This movement does not come so much in a context of innovation as in a crisis management room: The money that Tether moves is money that escapes the control and commissions of the SWIFT system. The bank is not creating something new, it is trying to build its own version of something that already exists, works on a large scale and is taking over their ground. The great contradiction is that, to compete, they must use a technology (blockchain) designed explicitly to eliminate intermediaries. The business model of a bank is, precisely, to be that intermediary. They are forcibly adopting the foundations of technology that threatens to erode an increasing part of their business. And now whatand. The ball is now in the court of governments and central banks. For a regulator, a stablecoin issued by a private bank continues to be a threat to monetary sovereignty. This movement only serves to hurry them up in the development of their own digital currencies (the famous CBDC). A CBDC controlled by the European Central Bank or the Federal Reserve could, in the long term, render obsolete both stablecoins of Tether as those now proposed by banks. The banking consortium, in its attempt not to be left behind, may have only managed to accelerate the arrival of a much more powerful competitor: the State itself. In Xataka | It is not bitcoin or Ethereum: Tether is the stablecoin that has turned its creators into emperors of finance Featured image | Alicja Ziajowska

Miquel Ballester, co-founder of Fairphone, talks to us about how they compete with giants

by

I meet again Miquel Ballester twelve years later. I interviewed him in 2013: I started my career in Xataka, and he did the same in Fairphonea company he officially co-founded a few months earlier with a singular goal: “to create the world’s first fully fair smartphone.” Many things have changed since then. We both already have gray hair, and we have both experienced from our side of the industry how smartphones have conquered the world and then become a standard and everyday product that has one difficulty: that of being truly differentiating. A different mobile in everything. Including your materials But at Fairphone they have managed to do precisely that: differentiate themselves. Your focus is totally different to that of the rest of the manufacturers, and although that part of the original mission has not changed, it has also expanded. According to Ballester, “it has always been a tool,” because Fairphone’s intention was to “change the industry from within.” Fairphone (Gen. 6). In fact, he explains, “we could have made our way by remaining an NGO or getting into the industry in another way, perhaps inspiring other companies and convincing them that there was a market for fair electronics.” Instead they decided to apply the old “if you want something well done you have to do it yourself”, and got to work. This is how the original Fairphone was born and how the others have emerged. Thus, the Fairphone commitment to conflict-free minerals remains one of the hallmarks of its devices. Miquel Ballester confirms that the situation has improved, in part, thanks to legislative changes such as those that have emerged in Europe. “Monitoring and reporting that reveals where certain materials come from, but conflict-free minerals are only one part” of the equation, he points out. The company has scaled its commitment from the initial 4 supply chains to 23 monitored chains, with the goal of half of its materials coming from fair or recycled sources. The new Fairphone (Gen. 6) is the demonstration of that work: more than 50% of the weight of its materials corresponds to fair or recycled materials (that percentage was 42% in the Fairphone 5). This direct management of the chain is vital, especially when deal with rare earthswhose shortage global affects the entire industry. Ballester clarifies that, although they notice the impact on the price, the one directly affected by the volume and wait challenges is the company that manufactures the component, not always the final assembler. Long live modularity and repairability If there is one thing that defines Fairphone, it is its radical approach to repairability and modularitysomething they have successfully extended beyond phones, as evidenced by their repairable headphones, the amazing Fairbuds. Miquel Ballester, Head of Product at Fairphone. That philosophy raises an inevitable question: “Does being repairable and modular involve too many sacrifices?” According to Ballester, “In Generation 6 we are very proud of the balance we have achieved between performance, modularity and sustainability. We have had to say no to many things, but they have all been good strategic decisions that went in one direction: getting a balanced phone for the type of consumer and the type of market we are in.” It is in these decisions that it has been decided, for example, whether to opt for one or another cutting-edge components. We have an example in the ultra-wide-angle sensor, which has lowered its resolution which “has nothing to do with modularity”, but rather to seek a balance and a good balance of specifications. But of course, that philosophy imposes certain criteria. Thus, this engineer and entrepreneur explains to us, “modularity imposes design and size restrictions“. For example, to ensure a large and serviceable battery, the device had to be “a few millimeters thicker” (9.6 mm in the case of the Fairphone (Gen. 6)). Despite this, Ballester emphasizes that this modularity cannot compromise the design too much. In the end, the mobile phone needs to “work and be attractive. It is super important that when a person goes to a store – we are in 20 operators throughout Europe – they see a terminal with a good design.” All that history and experience has allowed them to polish once again a design that remains remarkable but that at the same time includes a battery of decent capacity (4,415 mAh) that is also interchangeable/repairable. The result for him and his team is remarkable: “I’m very proud of the design we’ve achieved with the Fairphone (Gen. 6). It feels good in hand, is light, maintains balance and has a larger screen than the Fairphone 5, which was one of the key goals we had.” In fact, we asked Ballester about past mistakes that they learned from, and he precisely alluded to the predecessor of this mobile. “The Fairphone 5 is a very good device, but it is also I tried to do many things. With the Fairphone (Gen. 6) we were able to make stricter decisions about what should be included and what not, and thanks to that we were able to launch it at a more affordable price.” The Fairphone (Gen. 6), like its predecessors, allows you to enjoy an interchangeable battery, a feature that was previously common and is no longer so. Long live repairable cell phones. It’s true: the Fairphone 5 was launched at 699 euros, while the Fairphone (Gen. 6) has a retail price of 599 euros, a notable difference especially considering that it is normal for everything to go up in price, not go down. For him, in fact, what happened with the Fairphone 5 led to a very important learning experience. “The 5 responded to a certain moment in the company, there was uncertainty, we did not want to close doors. With Gen. 6 we have taken another path even knowing that perhaps we were leaving things behind. You can’t try to please everyone because in the end you don’t make anyone happy.“. Fairphone in Spain and how to compete with giants At Fairphone … Read more

What few have when two audio giants face

by

In a corner, the metallic brightness and the promise of total integration. In the other, the very discreet portability and obsession with cancellation and autonomy. Airpods Max and Sony Wh1000XM6 They go up to the quadrilateral with very different arguments To conquer the user. The question is direct: do you prefer the path of Design and Apple’s ecosystem or the customization and control that Sony offers? Among the versus everything works by rounds: they face face to face and each section adds or subtracts until only one winner remains. In this ring andA have passed the iPhone 17, Garmin, Huawei and Amazfit clocks, And even Amazon’s best selling fryers. Today, the baton is in the hands of Samuel Oliverthat distributes the points until you reach the final verdict. The rounds that decide this versus The first thing that makes our partner clear is that the design does not count on the scoreboard: “Design is very subjective Some are going to like that of the Airpods and other Sony. ”That said, Oliver enters the materials and portability.“ Inevitably the Airpods Max take this section ” Samuel Oliver does not go with Rodeos when talking about the sound and highlights the high sound quality that the Apple device offers from the first moment. But not everything is said. From there, the comparison focuses on how the experience changes in the face of Sony’s warmer and customizable proposal, a contrast that deserves to be heard in the video. The Noise cancellation It is one of the key sections in this comparison. Sony has been polishing generation after generation its algorithm and microphone management, while Apple bets on huge earmuffs that help achieve remarkable isolation. In the midst of that technical and design battle, a track falls into the video: “But here the balance bows when we test the global suppression and adaptation it has to all kinds of noise.” In functionality, Apple and Sony move in very different worlds. The Max Airpods stand out for their immediate integration into the brand’s ecosystem, with automatic pairing and very careful physical controls. Sony, on the other hand, is committed to maximum customization through its application, with equalizer, cancellation modes and multipoint connection. The autonomy test is what ends up tilting the balance in this comparison. Our partner tells in the video how each proposal translates on a day -to -day basis, with fast charges and surprises in prolonged use. What does not change is his warning: “There is nothing worse, but nothing worse than getting out of home, also in a hurry, put on the helmets, whatever they are and have no battery.” After measuring sound, cancellation or autonomy, there is a land that is usually decisive: the price. It is not the same to bet on a premium design than to look for the most versatile and easy to find option. Samuel Oliver talks about the winner and explains that “it is a very difficult proposal to ignore, especially if we compare its price.” If you want to know how each round is resolved and what is the outcome of this fight, The answer is in the full video. There are the differences with practical tests, real -use examples and nuances that are only seen seeing the helmets in action. We invite you to visit the Xataka YouTube channelwhere you can also leave your opinion and join the debate about who really deserves victory. Images | Xataka In Xataka | Echo Dot Max, Echo Studio, Echo Show 8 and Echo Show 11: The key to the new Amazon speakers and screens is in the design

The fight between “giants” causes Tesla to collapse and lose 100,000 million in a few hours

by

The good relationship that Donald Trump and Elon Musk exhibited for months has deteriorated significantly in recent days. Although the businessman seemed to leave his position in the Doge (Department of Government Efficient) in good terms, With a farewell from the Oval Officetensions have not stopped increasing. So much so that on Thursday the president of the United States was “very disappointed” by the criticisms of the CEO of Tesla to the fiscal bill that promotes its administration. The owner of X (formerly Twitter) responded in several publications that, without his support, Trump “would have lost the elections.” The dispute rose when Trump said that “the easiest way to save billions of dollars” of the federal budget is canceling the subsidies and government contracts that benefit Musk companies. According to The New York Timesonly in 2024 the companies linked to the tycoon accumulated about 100 contracts with about 17 federal agencies. Most were for Spacex, but Tesla also is among the beneficiaries. In total, there were about 3,000 million dollars. Trump even affirmed that he had asked Musk to leave his post in the government, an affirmation that the businessman strongly denied in X: “What a lie so obvious. How sad.” The climb coincides with a delicate front for Tesla. The fiscal policies promoted by the Trump administration could be a coup of 1.2 billion dollars to the annual benefit of Tesla, according to JPMorgan (Via Bloomberg), by largely eliminating the fiscal credit of 7,500 dollars for electric vehicles. On Thursday, the stock market effects were demolving. Tesla fell up to 18 % in its worst day since September 2020. At the close, the collapse was 14.26 %. Only on that day, he lost more than 100,000 million dollars of stock market capitalization, erasing a good part of the rebound he had achieved in recent weeks. Images | The White House In Xataka | Elon Musk entered the US government with the aim of having a more favorable NASA to their interests. It has been regular

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.