lost

Not only has the US just lost the “eye” that Hormuz watched, its nuclear aircraft carrier is in Africa for fear of being shot down

by

Year 2019, an American surveillance drone more than 200 million of dollars disappears from the radar over the Gulf of Oman and, a few hours later, Iran shows its remains to the world on television. It was not the first time something like this had happened, but it was one of the most uncomfortable: a machine designed to see everything had been seen before it could react. Since then, in that part of the map, each silence in the systems begins to weigh more than it seems. Losing the “eye” that watched Hormuz. Confirmation of the fall of MQ-4C Triton a few hours ago is not a simple technical incident, but the loss of one of the most advanced pieces of the US surveillance system in the Persian Gulf. This drone, capable of operating at high altitude for hours and equipped with cutting-edge sensors, was key to monitor naval movementsdetect threats and maintain situational control around the strait. His disappearance, under circumstances still unclearleaves a most uncomfortable void at a time when every piece of information matters, especially in an environment where mines, drones and speedboats turn any mistake into a real threat. The “scared” aircraft carrier. Plus: the diversion of USS George H.W. Bush Going around Africa instead of crossing the Suez Canal is not just any logistical decision, but a symptom of that operational vulnerability What Washington is suffering from. The reason? Avoid passing through Bab el-Mandeb It means recognizing that even a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group, one of the most powerful assets in the world, cannot guarantee their security in a strait where actors such as the Houthis have demonstrated the ability to attack ships with drones and missiles. This detour not only lengthens times and complicates deployments, but also shows that military superiority does not always translate into freedom of movement. The uncomfortable precedent. Not only that. They counted the Forbes analysts that the decision of avoid Bab el-Mandeb It raises a disturbing question for the immediate future, because if this step is already considered too dangerous, what happens to Hormuz, much narrower, guarded and saturated with Iranian defensive systems? The logic is a huge question. Iran not only has more advanced technology than its regional allies, but also decades of specific preparation for that scenario. That makes any attempt to operate there a very high risk betand where even a single relevant impact could completely alter the strategic balance of the area. The strategic paradox. If you also want, what emerges from these movements is not that image of overflowing force that is presupposed, but rather of calculation and extreme fear. While American political discourse speaks of pressure, blockade and control, tactical decisions are revealing prudence, we would even say caution. The simple fact that the route of a nuclear aircraft carrier is redesigned to avoid a hot spot shows that the margin of error it’s tiny. And in an environment where a successful attack on a high-value ship could trigger disproportionate military and political consequences, the priority is no longer projecting strength and power, but avoiding losses at all costs. When losing a little is too much. In summary, the combination of drone crash Triton and the rnuclear aircraft carrier odeo paints a crystal clear picture: right now, the United States is not operating from a position of comfort, but rather in an extremely delicate balance. In that scenario, it doesn’t take a devastating blow to change the rules of the game, just with a symbolic one. Because a lost surveillance drone may be acceptable, even if it has the characteristics of the MQ-4C, but a damaged warship or a compromised nuclear aircraft carrier would be a very different story. Image | USN In Xataka | The US already has the first response to its blockade of Hormuz: a boomerang of unpredictable consequences called China In Xataka | The US has closed all exits from the Strait of Hormuz. And now Iran can put into practice what it has been preparing for 25 years

is that Iran has “lost the keys” and without them the balance is broken

by

There are only a few maritime passages in the world capable of altering the global economy in a matter of days, and some of them are so narrow that they could fit inside a large city. Through those corridors they circulate every day hundreds of ships loaded with energy, raw materials and essential goods. Their fragility is such that a large military deployment is not necessary to alter them: it is enough that something stopped fitting so that the entire system suffers. Closed… but not by what it seems. For weeks, the international focus has been on whether the Strait of Hormuz was open or closedbut the reality could be much more disturbing: that Iran is not fully in control of the shutdown it caused. After laying naval mines in response to attacks by the United States and Israel, the passage was practically paralyzed, raising energy prices and giving Tehran a powerful tool of pressure. However, this same strategy has generated an unexpected situation in which, according to Iran has slippedthe blockade no longer depends only on a political or military decision, but on a technical problem that is much more difficult to reverse. The concept of “losing the keys”. Because the core of the problem is how the mines could have been deployed: hastily, disorganized and, in the worst case, without a record. accurate of your location. Some were even able to move through ocean currents, further complicating their location. So, this weekend counted the new york times that what in theory should have been a controlled closure of the strait has become something more chaotic and disturbing, where not even those who placed the mines know with certainty where they all are. The metaphor of “losing the keys” is not rhetorical, but rather a quite literal description of the situation that has been heard. in embassies in Tehran: Iran has blocked the door, but can no longer open it easily. An effective weapon against. He use of minescombined with the threat of drones and missiles, managed to reduce maritime traffic to a minimum and generate strong global pressure, but that strategic advantage began to turn against Tehran. To mitigate the impact, Iran has maintained limited corridors and spread supposedly safe routes, even allowing some ships to pass under certain conditions. Even so, the traffic flow has not been normalizedbecause the risk remains too high and uncertainty about the location of the mines persists. The technical limit of a modern war. Basically, something that we have been counting these weeks: the elimination of naval mines is one of the more complex operations in the military field, and not even powers like the United States have sufficient capabilities to quickly clear a road as critical as Hormuz. In this context, the Iranian situation is even more delicate: its own technical limitations, aggravated by the attacks to its naval infrastructuremake a quick reopening unfeasible. This introduces an unexpected factor into the negotiations, since the “technical limitations” mentioned by its leaders are not a diplomatic excuse, but a real obstacle. Unstable balance with risk of escalation. The result is a scenario extremely fragilewhere a partially blocked strait depends as much on political decisions as an out-of-control minefield. Neither Iran nor the United States have a clear image of how many mines there are or where they are, while Tehran retains the ability to plant more with small boats that are difficult to track. Of course there is also an option that no one rules out. Now that it is the United States that has decided to block Hormuz. Iran could be playing its cards, because the normal thing is that all the mines are mappedand that Tehran simply does not trust Washington and refuses to take any steps before receiving concrete concessions. And in all these scenarios, Hormuz becomes an area where any error, accident or incorrect calculation can escalate quickly, because the problem is no longer just who controls the passage, but that no one has full control of what happens underwater. Image | Jenikir In Xataka | The most buoyant market right now is selling streaming and satellite images of US movements to Iran. In Xataka | Commercial aviation is based on very old aircraft. The Iran war is going to make it even worse

To locate the pilot lost in Iran, the US used two tools. One was given by Boeing, the other is science fiction

by

The call quantum magnetometry has promised to measure magnetic fields so weak that they border on detectability, using microscopic defects in synthetic diamonds capable of registering imperceptible variations. In the laboratory, these techniques already allow biological signals to be observed at surprising scales, but always in environments controlled and at very short distances. Outside of these ideal conditions, between noise, interference and distance, the great unknown remains the same: how far that sensitivity really goes. The United States claims to have the answer, and it is very difficult to believe. Two tools to find a missing person. Washington has counted that the operation to rescue to the airman shot down in Iran was based on a very specific combination of technologies that, together, made the difference between finding a man or losing him in an immense terrain. On the one hand, the pilot had a standard and well-known system available as Boeing’s CSELa communications device that allows send encrypted signals via satellite and guide rescue teams with relative precision. This type of tool, widely distributed in the armed forces, was key to confirming that he was still alive and limiting his initial position in an extremely hostile environment. The other tool that borders on the implausible. The second element of the rescue is the one that has generated the most interest (and doubts), since different information supported by a exclusive to the New York Post point to the use of a system called “Ghost Murmur” capable of detecting the human heartbeat at long distance using quantum magnetometry combined with artificial intelligence. On paper, the idea is extraordinary in a movie, but apparently also in the real world: identify the electromagnetic signature of a living body in the middle of the desert, isolate it from noise and convert it into an operational coordinate. It happens that the unknowns also begin here, because these types of signals are extremely weak and, until now, they could only be measured at a very short distance in controlled environments, which raises serious doubts about its real range in combat conditions. Between the plausible and the inflated. The context of the rescue itself suggests that, rather than replacing the classic system, this technology would have acted as a complement under very specific conditions: an environment with low electromagnetic interference, few human signatures or signals, and a target forced to briefly expose itself to activate its beacon. That is, not so much an omniscient tool as a very limited capacityuseful in ideal scenarios but difficult to extrapolate to more complex situations. The narrative of “finding someone by their heartbeat from miles away” fits well as a concept or in a Nolan film, but until now it clashed with known physical limitations. The “Venezuelan” precedent. Many skeptical analysts have gone for the jugular of these claims, speaking reverse engineering of another futuristic weapon to achieve the “Ghost Murmur”. Because skepticism does not arise in a vacuum, but in a recent context where technologies wrapped in an almost fantastic halo have already been presented, such as the supposed “discombobulator” mentioned by Trump in the operation against Nicolás Maduro. In that case, experts pointed out that it was probably a mix of capabilities real (electronic warfare, acoustic weapons or directed energy systems) presented as a single almost magical device. The pattern is recognizable: existing technologies reinterpreted or exaggerated in the public narrative. The war is also fought in the technological story. If you also want, as a whole, the rescue reveals something deeper than a simple military operation: the growing importance of technological narrative in modern conflicts. The United States used a tangible tooleffective and proven to locate the pilot, no more no less than a GPSbut he also hinted at another capacity that, real or not in the terms described, projects a image of superiority almost total. And possibly there, between what is technically possible and what is communicated, there is a space where perception matters as much as reality, and where sometimes the border between advanced technology and science fiction becomes deliberately blurred. The rescue movie, of course, has already been practically written. Image | US Air Force In Xataka | The rescue of a fallen US pilot in Iran seems like a science fiction story. And there are elements to think that it is In Xataka | Iran has found a hole in Israel’s shield: turning a missile into an explosive “storm” in full descent

To rescue the pilot lost in Iran, the US has told a story worthy of Spielberg. Some explosive images tell a very different story

by

In military manuals, rescue missions in enemy territory are as rare as they are dangerous: In decades of modern conflicts, only a few have been successfully completed without becoming a complete disaster. Some have marked history for their failuresothers for their execution to the limit, but most share something in common: the margin of error It is practically non-existent. Two stories for the same mission. When explaining the rescue mission of an American pilot on Iranian territory, Washington has told a story that Spielberg himself would sign: a wounded airman, alone and hiding in a mountain crevice, resisting for almost two days while the enemy searches for him and an elite force that bursts in between explosions to get him out alive. Of course, there is another version that is not narrated by American communiqués, but by some explosive images launched from the Iranian side: destroyed aircraft, improvisation on the ground and an operation that, although successful in its end, seems much more chaotic than what was intended to be conveyed. Between the two, a story full of chiaroscuros is built where epic and uncertainty coexist. The demolition and the race against time. lThe story started several days ago with the downing of an F-15E in Iranian territory, an already exceptional fact as it was the first American fighter lost in combat in years. The two crew members eject, but only the pilot is quickly rescued, while the weapons systems officer is isolated in a hostile mountainous area. From there a race against time: The wounded airman climbs a ridge, hides in a crevice and emits intermittent signals so as not to give away their position, while Iranian forces, militias and even civilians motivated by rewards search the area. For hours, not even Washington is clear if he is still alive. The perfect official version. The American narrative presents the mission as an impeccable display of power and coordination, with special forces, bombers, drones and massive air cover executing one of the most complex rescue operations in its history. There is talk of surgical precision, absolute control of airspace and clean extraction no American casualtiesculminated with a triumphalist message that elevates the operation to a symbol of military superiority. The CIA involvement adds an almost cinematic component, with an apparent deception campaign that confuses the Iranian forces as they locate the pilot “like a needle in a haystack.” A US Army AH-6 Little Bird helicopter The “other” details. However, upon delving into all the data that has been appearing, important cracks appear in the story. The first rescue attempt fails under enemy fireseveral helicopters are damaged and at least one A-10 falls during the operation, which already calls into question the idea of ​​total control. It happens that the final extraction is not goes as planned. How much? Apparently, two special operations planes were trapped on the ground after their wheels sank on a makeshift runway, forcing emergency reinforcements to be sent and, attention, to destroy them later to prevent them from falling into Iranian hands. The images of the place They show charred remains of aircraft and helicopters, evidencing a much more eventful and risky operation than the official story suggests. The ambiguity of combat. Because another key point is the nature of the confrontation. While some versions speak of a “mass shooting”other more detailed sources indicate that there was no direct combat sustained on the ground, but rather air strikes against approaching Iranian forces. This difference is neither trivial nor minor, because it actually transforms a narrative of heroic confrontation in a very different where technological and aerial superiority was the truly decisive factor, reducing the drama of hand-to-hand combat, but increasing the feeling of distance between what was told and what happened. Propaganda, perception and war of stories. If you like, everything indicates that the rescue was not only a simple military operation, but a narrative battle in the middle of war. From the sidewalk in Washington, the story became a kind of “Easter miracle” useful for bolstering domestic support and projecting strength. However, from the sidewalk of Tehran, the simple fact of having shot down the plane It already served as proof that he could challenge the United States. In that context, every detail counts the same that every omissionbecause control of the story is almost as important as the tactical result. Success with many shadows. The pilot seems to have been finally rescued and that, in military terms, marks the success of the operation. However, the path to achieve it reveals something more complex: a mission on the edge, with failures, improvisation, extreme risks and decisions made on the fly that contradict the image of perfect execution. Perhaps for this reason, between the story that seems written for the cinema and the one revealed by the smoking remains on the ground, it remains a conclusion most uncomfortable: even the most successful operations can hide a reality much more fragile than one wants to admit. Image | US MARINE In Xataka | The US is going to end its war in the Middle East with a very uncomfortable reality: Iran had years of advantage underground In Xataka | If the question is “how close are we to an escalation in Iran,” the answer is US A-10s flying there

Microsoft’s problem is not having lost a quarter of its value in three months. It’s just that he’s been wrong for a long time.

by

It seems like not so long ago when many celebrated Microsoft’s commitment to Azure. The decision of Satya Nadella Focusing on cloud computing soon began to translate into good financial results, propelling the Redmond company to achieve record revenue figures. But there was something more relevant in that movement: the realization that it could generate enormous benefits beyond Windows. That strategy, started in 2014ended up marking a before and after that became especially visible in 2019, when the firm reached for the first time a market capitalization of one trillion dollars. However, not even the most long-term oriented strategists, like Nadella, are free from errors. Microsoft has been chaining questionable decisions for some time that have ended up having a direct impact on its quarterly results. Specifically, the company has lost almost a quarter of its value in just three months. To put it in context, we are talking about its largest quarterly drop since the 2008 financial crisis. A decline of this magnitude, logically, does not go unnoticed. From cloud leadership to a strategy under pressure If we want to understand why the story has gone wrong, we have to start with the most obvious: the market has reacted harshly and, above all, selectively. In the first quarter of 2026, Microsoft lost about 23% of its stock market value, according to CNBCwhile the Nasdaq lost around 7%. It is not a minor movement, among other things because we are talking about a drop of a magnitude that has not been seen in almost two decades. This gap compared to the rest of the sector begins to point out problems that go beyond the general context. For a time, the commitment to OpenAI was seen as one of Microsoft’s great strategic successes, and it is not difficult to understand why. The company has invested around 13 billion dollarss to integrate this technology into Azure and into products like Copilot, which allowed it to place itself in a very advantageous position in the race of the artificial intelligence. However, with the passage of time we have also begun to see the other side of that decision: a very high technological dependence and a growing pressure to justify that deployment. As the months have passed, that close relationship has also quietly begun to change. Although Azure remains a key partner for OpenAI, the company led by Sam Altman has started to open your infrastructure to other actors to sustain the growth of its models, which increasingly require more computing capacity and energy. This does not break the alliance, but it does change its meaning, because Microsoft no longer concentrates with the same clarity all the strategic advantage that it had achieved in the first phases of the agreement. If we go down to the field of the product, where all these bets should materialize, the case of Copilot is especially illustrative. Microsoft has tried to make this assistant the axis of its new value propositionintegrating it into Microsoft 365 and a good part of its ecosystem, but the adoption It is not going at the expected pace. According to The Information, almost no one uses Copilot. What we have seen is that bringing artificial intelligence to the daily life of companies is more complex than it seemed on paper. Added to all this is a tension that is not always seen, but is very present in the backroom of this race: that of how to distribute resources in an environment of growing demand. Microsoft is investing massively in infrastructure to sustain the rise of AI, but at the same time it has to decide how it allocates that capacity between Azure and its own services. In January, CFO Amy Hood came to point out that Azure’s growth in the December quarter would have been even greater if the company had allocated more chips to the cloud instead of distributing some of that capacity among services like Copilot. Attrition is not limited to artificial intelligence, and that should also be taken into account. Also this year we have seen notable drops in income and in various areas of the Xbox ecosystemin a context also marked by previous price increases in Game Pass and on the consoles. It may seem like a minor front next to Azure or Microsoft 365, but it helps complete the picture of a company that has been opening too many flanks at the same time. What we have seen is that even in areas where it had a consolidated position, Microsoft is finding it more difficult to keep pace. Put all these pieces together, and what begins to emerge is an increasingly evident disconnect between Microsoft’s operational strength and the way the market is valuing its strategy. The company remains the fourth most valuable on the planetcontinues to grow, with revenue up close to 17% year-on-year in its last reported quarter and with Azure advancing 39% in the December quarter, but that strength is not translating to its price or valuation. Images | Xataka with Nano Banana 2 In Xataka | The ghost of IBM: Satya Nadella’s great challenge is to prevent Microsoft from becoming a technological fossil

A crew member of the International Space Station lost his speech and NASA does not know why

by

Last January, four astronauts had to leave the International Space Station early due to a medical emergency. At the time it was pointed out that it was due to the health problems of one of the astronauts. However, at no time was it clarified which of them it was, in order to preserve their privacy. Over time, NASA has dropped some new data in dribs and drabs. Now, we know who it was and why, but the cause of his illness remains a mystery. The facts: At the beginning of January, NASA announced the cancellation of a space walk that astronauts Michael Fincke and Zena Cardman should have done. Just a few hours later, the imminent return to Earth of the entire Crew 11 was announced. That included both Fincke and Cardman as well as Kimiya Yui, from the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) and Oleg Platanov, from the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos). The return trip was planned to take place in February, but it finally took place on January 15. At that time, NASA had not yet announced which of the crew members was sick. It was only noted that he was stable and that he would have to undergo more tests. Without words in space. Shortly after that mysterious medical emergency, NASA announced that the sick astronaut was Mike Fincke. However, at that time he still did not provide information about the illness that led him and his companions to return home early. Now, finally, we know what happened. As stated by Fincke himself in statements to the mediaon January 7, while eating with his companions, he realized that he could not speak. Thanks to the quick intervention of his colleagues and the remote support of NASA doctors, he was immediately stabilized. However, it was urgent to return to Earth to perform the relevant tests. The episode has not been repeated and it has been ruled out that it was a heart attack or stroke. More tests. Fincke will possibly have to undergo more tests so we can find out why he temporarily lost his speech. However, he himself has reported that NASA suspects that it could be an effect of his stay in space. For this reason, the medical records of other astronauts are being reviewed, looking for an episode similar to theirs. space brain. Living in space can affect your health in many different ways. All organs are susceptible to the effects of microgravity. In the case of the brain, It has been proven that it can even move inside the skull. It is not known for sure what could have happened to this NASA astronaut. However, it seems quite likely that his medical emergency was for this reason. And now what? If all goes well with Artemis II, NASA hopes to travel to the Moon more and more regularly and even build a space base there at some point. Other companies, like SpaceX, have the same dream. Therefore, it is vital to study how microgravity or cosmic radiation can affect the health of future colonizers. All astronauts of Crew 11 Astronauts on the International Space Station have been testing these types of events for a long time. What has happened to Fincke at the moment is a mystery, but logically it is something that must be taken into account. What happened to him will have to be investigated to prevent it from happening again, whether on the International Space Station, on the Moon or at any other point in outer space that humans reach. Image | NASA | Unsplash In Xataka | Spanish technology in the return to the Moon: the system designed in Madrid that NASA will use in Artemis II

The bill is 45,000 euros and two lost trials

by

When a traffic light stops working there are road rules that we must follow until it is repaired. The worst thing is when this repair takes several days, causing chaos in traffic. That was what happened in 2023 in Valencia, and the dispute between the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV) and the maintenance company remained unresolved until a few days ago. What happened. For five days in November 2023, the pedestrian traffic light located on Doctor Manuel Candela Avenue with Santos Justo y Pastor Street showed the red light and the green light at the same time. According to they count From El Motor, the first alert was registered on November 14 at 6:45 in the morning. Four days later, a municipal inspection confirmed that the problem remained unresolved. Why did it take so long? The origin of the failure, according to the Valencia City Council, was that the company that had to take charge replaced the burned out halogen lamps. for other LED types with E27 socket. Municipal services described them as “glaringly unsuitable for traffic light networks.” The problem, furthermore, was not only the type of bulb that was used, but the technical procedure they followed to install them. A procedure that municipal reports described as “technically inappropriate.” blegal attack. The City Council imposed a penalty of 45,000 euros on Electronic Trafic SA, the company awarded the contract. The company appealed, arguing that it had resolved two different breakdowns, both in less than two hours, and that the council had “deliberately” confused the terms breakdown and incident, which would entail different economic implications depending on the contract. He also alleged “animosity” from the head of the Mobility Service towards the company. The courts did not see it that way. What the judges said. The TSJCV confirmed the sanction on February 26, supporting the City Council’s thesis. The sentence highlights “the seriousness of the behavior followed by the contractor”, which left the incident unresolved for more than four days at an intersection where there is special traffic. The court highlighted that the municipal reports were “highly precise and exhaustive” and that the company did not provide sufficient technical evidence to refute them. According to point The Motor, in addition to the 45,000 euros, the company must pay 2,500 euros in procedural costs. What this sentence implies. The issue here is that the company notified of the problem but the traffic light continued not to work correctly during those days. Therefore, the city council insist in which the responsibility falls on the company, from notification to solution. The failure being a traffic light, a critical road safety device, all the more so the urgency of finding a solution. More and more cities are outsourcing intelligent traffic management to private companies, and the ruling certainly sets a precedent. What happens now? The crossing operates normally. The ruling still allows for an appeal, although the fact that two different courts have endorsed the city council’s position means that the company has little room for maneuver. Cover image | Georgi Zvezdov In Xataka | We already have the VAT discount at the pump: now the battle begins to prevent gas stations from absorbing it

If the question is how Seat has lost 100% of its profit in its best year, the answer is simple: Chinese electric car

by

The electric car continues to be Seat SA’s great debt. The company that houses Seat and Cupra could be popping the champagne with record numbers, but a decision has destroyed its profit margin despite billing more than ever and selling more cars than ever. The numbers. Seat SA has presented results. The company that houses Seat and Cupra has made public its 2025 numbers with record figures that invite optimism: 15.3 billion euros in turnover (5.1% more than the previous year) 586,300 cars delivered (5.1% more than the previous year) More plug-in hybrids sold than ever, with a growth of 62.9% More electric vehicles sold than ever, with a growth of 65.9% But the figures are obscured when we talk about benefits. And the company barely retained 40.9 million euros of net profit, 92% less than the previous year. And the data on its operating profits is even more dramatic. Seat indicates a million euros with a drop of 99.8% but that figure is subject to IFRS (international financial standards). Seat reports in its results note of -93.1 million euros as a result of exploitation with Spanish financial standards, along with a cash flow of -431 million euros after investing 1,300 million euros in CAPEX and R&D, which add up to a total of 6,200 million euros invested in this item since 2020. A strategy that works. In 2022, with Wayne Griffiths at the helm of the company, Seat SA took a turn in its strategy. The then CEO said that “Cupra is not the end of Seat. Cupra gives Seat a future and the future is electric. The future is Cupra.” Three years later, Cupra has sold 328,800 units, 56.1% of Seat SA cars, with a growth of 32.5% compared to 2024. So, Seat SA had just lost more than 450 million euros in two years. The company has managed to refresh its image and move customers towards more expensive models that leave a greater profit margin. It is never good news to sell fewer cars (Seat sold 257,400 units in 2025, 17% less than the previous year) but the company has managed to compensate for this decline by selling more expensive cars. And not only that, increasing sales. The electric car. In addition, the company has achieved a substantial increase in sales in its most electrified models. However, if Seat has lost relevance in the market it is because its offer, right now, is anti-competitive where electrification is demanded. In fact, the ECO label (and in mild hybridization versions) will have to keep waiting in models like the Ibiza or the Arona. Markus Haupt, new CEO of Seat since Griffiths leftalready made it clear a few months ago that It was impossible to launch an electric car with the Seat logo right now. The problem, he pointed out, is that it was too expensive and that prevented a positioning aligned with the role that Seat is currently playing within the Volkswagen Group. From Germany they understood that that affordable electric role had to be covered by Skoda and Seat will be relegated to an access brand to the motor market, with cars that are already veterans in the market and very little electrified engines. Cars in which no money has been invested but they continue to report profits despite the fact that their sales have been declining. Looking at the volume of electric sales in Europe, it seems that it makes sense not to continue loading up on models that can be cannibalized within the Volkswagen Group. And the Tavascan. Seat SA’s commitment to electric cars was to come with the Cupra Tavascan. The car was sold as a turning point for the brand with the aim of making it clear that we were facing a new image and that Cupra was not only seen as the sports version of Seat. Cupra aimed to make itself in a journey that had already begun with the Born. The Volkswagen Group decided early that for him Cupra Tavascan was competitive it had to be taken to China. But with production already committed, The European Union imposed harsh tariffs on carssince it has the participation of SAIC. The base 10% soared by another 37.6%. That has eaten into any kind of profit generated with a car that had this as its primary objective. These tariffs have not had to be paid by the Skoda Enyaq, Audi Q4 or Volkswagen ID.5, all produced in Europe. Last February, the European Commission confirmed that had reached an agreement to withdraw tariffs on this car as an exceptional case. Cupra has promised not to lower the price and to comply with an export quota. Both figures are, however, confidential. at losses. Although Cupra has promised not to lower the price, it is highly unlikely that the company would have opted for this once the tariffs had been lifted. And it is that the Cupra Tavascan was being sold at a loss despite exceeding 40,000 euros per unit. Aware that it was impossible to sell the car at a price that would allow them to make money with such high tariffs, Cupra preferred to eat that cost and lose money with each car sold. The strategy may make sense because the production commitments in China are maintained and it has helped the company to put the car on the street, make it visible and invest in brand image. Already in 2024 the brand expected to lose 500 million euros with the sale of the Tavascan. An optimistic view. The good news for Seat is that, at last, they have managed to get their Tavascan to start generating profits for the company instead of eating them. But also that Cupra remains strong with its electrified bet. The Cupra Born has been recently renovated and the Raval will arrive in 2026, made in Martorell. The company’s goal is to achieve, by 2030, a profit margin of 6%. To do this, they say, they will focus on cost … Read more

NVIDIA has lost hope in China, which is why it has started manufacturing its own next-generation GPUs for AI

by

NVIDIA faces this 2026 a crucial year. They have become one of the largest strategic investors in the AI ​​ecosystem with dozens of billion-dollar investments in other companies, models, infrastructure and robotics. But, in the end, they are a company that supplies chips and, so far, the H200 They set the tone. According to a report by Financial Timesthat’s over. NVIDIA just ordered TSMC to start mass manufacturing Vera Rubinits next-generation hardware for AI. The reason? They have lost all faith in China. In short. With the entire AI industry looking to the future, and NVIDIA that has its Vera Rubin on the starting grid, it was strange that the company continued to invest so much in keeping TSMC working on a chip as old as the H200. Although it has been around for a while, it has positioned itself as unbeatable in the industry due to its price/power ratio, so these are the chips on which it has been built. the AI ​​empire. However, time passes and NVIDIA needs to move. Data centers need more power, new models are more demanding and the spearhead of the software sector – such as OpenAI either Google– have demanded new solutions. According to two sources consulted by the financial media, and close to NVIDIA’s plans, the company has grown tired of “waiting in limbo” and has begun to accelerate the delivery and deployment of Vera Rubin. Yoncomparable. As it could not be otherwise, TSMC is going to be in charge. The Taiwanese foundry would have already been asked to begin diversifying the production line to begin manufacturing the new chips. And if you’re wondering why it’s not enough for Google or OpenAI to simply buy more H200, the answer is because the chips have nothing to do with it. H200 is a more classic GPU for a data center. It is the configuration that AI and computing companies on these servers have been working with for years. Vera Rubin, however, is a paradigm shift made up of new CPUs, new GPUs and designed so that everything works as a single rack-scale accelerator. It has not only more power, but also the latest software and hardware additions from NVIDIA and something very important: incredible bandwidth. The higher the bandwidth on such a system, the more simultaneous data it can handle. This implies greater efficiency when training, but also a lower cost in inference. It is not an update, it is a platform change designed for models with trillions of parameters. Qgoose faith in China. To put it more simply, if the H200 is like a “super powerful graphics card”, Vera Rubin is like a mini data center in itself. And if you’re wondering why they didn’t start production sooner, the reason is… China. Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA, has been ‘fighting’ with Washington for months to open their arms in the trade and technology war maintained by the US and China. Trump ended up agreeing and Huang commented earlier this year that they had returned to “turn on” all production lines to supply the very high Chinese demand. The problem is that that demand did not arrive. At least, It was not as high as Huang expected. In the presentation of results, NVIDIA’s financial director commented a few days ago that “although small quantities of H200 for Chinese customers were approved by the US government, we have not yet generated any income. And we do not know if imports to China will be allowed.” We already told the problem: The US was leaving for NVIDIA to sell its graphics, butThe Chinese government did not seem so convinced. Your main Big Tech They were demanding NVIDIA solutionsarguing that they need them to keep up with what their American rivals are doing, but the ball was in the court of the Government and Customs. China is promoting AI that is different from that of the US, more focused on low costs and rapid acceptance by the client, and at the same time want to build your own hardware network with companies like SMIC or a Huawei that you already have your supercomputer for AI. complicated swerve. From the Financial Times they point out that the president of China, Xi Jinping, and the president of the United States will meet at the end of March to discuss export controls. The problem is that, according to their sources, even if the barrier is lifted completely and not just for certain companies and China can buy H200s en masse, turning TSMC’s ship around so that it starts producing H200s again would be complicated. It is not as simple as pressing a button and going from producing one thing to another. If this situation occurs, “NVIDIA would take up to three months to reallocate or add capacity to the supply chain to produce H200.” One of Vera Rubin’s PCBs Rebound winner. What is clear here is that NVIDIA is not going to lose from the operation. Huang already argued that the United States could not miss the opportunity to take a slice of a multi-billion dollar market (because the US let the cards be sold… with a 25% tariff), but whether it is the Chinese or the Western industry, it is from NVIDIA that they continue to buy the H200 and, ‘shortly’, the Vera Rubin. And the rebound winner in this operation is Samsung. Of the three companies that manufacture memory (and that have catapulted the RAM and SSD crisis we are in), Samsung is the one that has completed its new generation HBM4 memory. It is the one that has passed the high standards of NVIDIA and the one that is already being mass manufactured to be able to integrate into Vera Rubin systems. Everyone attentive. As we said, NVIDIA has to the entire industry at his feet. Google, xAI and Meta are working on their own chips, but together with Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, OpenAI, Mistral and Anthropic they are some of the companies that they … Read more

Stellantis has lost 22 billion euros with the electric car. Their hope to solve it is called Zaragoza

by

Stellantis embarked on a path of rapid and aggressive transition to the electric car. Along the way, it merged models on the same platform, wanted to convert brands to zero emissions and lost the identity of some of them. The result is 20 billion euros of real and expected losses. Now, part of his future is at stake in Zaragoza with a Chinese car. Saragossa. The news was almost a not news because Stellantis, through the mouth of its CEO Automotive Newshad already confirmed that it would manufacture Leapmotor’s Chinese cars in Spain. By then, with a CATL factory in the middle of construction and already manufacturing Stellantis small electric cars, Zaragoza seemed the best placed city, ahead of Madrid and Vigo. Last week, Filosa himself reconfirmed what was already known but expanded the information with some nuances as stated in The Aragon Newspaper. The car will be manufactured in Zaragoza and will not be alone. And the company has awarded Spain the production of up to four completely electric Chinese models. It will, therefore, be the reconversion of Figueruelas. The Stellantis situation. Although the investments were already confirmed, the last presentation of results could have raised some doubts. Then Stellantis confirmed that the electric car would have a negative impact of 22,000 million euros in your accounts. This does not mean, exactly, that it loses that money, but it is the readjustment that amounts to the cancellation of two new factories, the compensatory payment to suppliers, the money invested in new developments and the money that will no longer enter the company’s coffers. All of this is a consequence of a project led by Carlos Tavares, former CEO of the company, which has failed. The Portuguese wanted to accompany the conversion to all-electric too quickly and with a very aggressive cost adjustment. The result has been too much product at dealerships that very few have bought and models little differentiated from each other with a total loss of identity between companies. Good news (1). Firstly, because the arrival of Leapmotor in Zaragoza represents support for the electric transition in Figueruelas. The factory will be in charge of producing one of the first purely Chinese electric cars to arrive in Europe, a key step to be able to sell them without tariffs. But this also guarantees two things. The first is the opening of a new assembly line because they cannot use exactly the same one as for the Opel Corsa, Peugeot 208 and Lancia Ypsilon electric that Figueruelas produces at the moment. The second is that it increases pressure on the production of batteries that CATL will set up nearby, giving greater support to the project. It remains to be seen if the other three Stellantis models will also roll out of their doors.. Good news (2). The second part of the announcement is interesting in that the Leapmotor B10, the first car to be assembled in Zaragoza, is different from the three mentioned above and that in itself is a reason for joy for Zaragoza. And it is that the Stellantis urban electric cars have not been working well in the market. Everything indicates that, in the future, these electric vehicles will have to receive the embrace of the European customer but at the moment it is not being like thatwhich raised questions about long-term production with a plant that could operate at half gas. The Lepmotor B10 is a car that Stellantis has hopes for because it is different. It has much more striking interiors, adjusted to the huge screens that the industry has demanded in recent years. And it has purely Chinese software and development, so Stellantis can play with the price because its investments have been minimal. The company has the power to distribute the car outside of China but the development, investments and sales within China have been left to Leapmotor itself. Strengths and weaknesses. Stellantis’ decision to produce in Spain reminds us the strength that our country has gained in Europe as a productive alternative to advance electric cars. Either because labor is cheaper than in countries like Germany or France, or because energy is also cheaper, Chery or Stellantis, with Leapmotor, have decided that they will manufacture on our soil. Spain has the advantage of a well-established industry that needs reconversion. The problem is that, for the moment, it has focused on the assembly of small cars (as also happens in Martorell) which are the ones that are having the most problems to sell them or, if necessary, for the brand to make a profit from them. It would be interesting for our country to expand its presence in the development of vehicles and not only focus its industry on their production. Therefore, it is good news that Chery also bets on our country for its new R&D&i space. Photo | In Xataka | Volkswagen’s cheap electric car is manufactured in Spain: this is the new megaconstruction that makes it possible

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.