Spotify has spent months deleting music made with AI. Now he wants to sell it as a premium product

In just a few weeks, Spotify has been changing its position on AI-generated music: months ago it removed more than 75 million fraudulent tracks, launched a distinctive seal so listeners knew when there were human hands on the other side, and tightened its filters against synthetic spam. But the turn came in the talk for investors on May 21, where it became clear that what worries Spotify is not AI, but generating income with it. The precedents. Let’s start with the moves Spotify has made to control the rampant presence of AI on the platform. In September 2025 the company revealed that had removed more than 75 million fraudulent leads of its platform in the previous twelve months. Many of the AI ​​actions were malicious: massive raises designed to steal royaltiesunauthorized voice clones and content which the company’s own executives called “slop.” By then Deezer had detected that it received more than 30,000 AI-generated tracks per day, and that up to 77% of its reproductions were fraudulent. Just a few weeks before the meeting with investors, on April 30, Spotify launched the “Verified by Spotify” seal, a verification mark that distinguishes human artists from the artificial ones, which are increasingly proliferating on the platform. To achieve it, musicians must demonstrate authentic activity, have linked social media accounts and concerts on the agenda (something that, as we have said over the last few months, does not guarantee anything, given the latest successes of AI-generated music, which have their following on networks and their continuous stream of releases). Deals with Universal. The main news before shareholders is a licensing agreement with Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world, which will allow Spotify Premium subscribers create covers and remixes with generative AI of songs from the artists participating in the agreement. The tool will arrive as a paid add-on to the usual subscription. It was already known that Spotify was considering charging up to an additional $5.99 per month for a “Music Pro” tier with superfan features. Co-CEO Alex Norström said that with this tool, “one song would become 10,000 songs.” The agreement contemplates a revenue sharing model with participating artists, and it was made clear that participation will be completely voluntary by the musicians. This announcement is no surprise: we already knew that Spotify was working on AI products with Universal, Sony, Warner, Merlin and Believe, but without a closed legal framework. Universal had previously licensed its catalog to smaller AI platforms, such as Udio, Klay Vision and Stability AI, but here it is already we enter in the 761 million monthly active users and 293 million paying subscribers. Long live AI. In an interviewNorström made it clear that, faced with multiple tools that allow songs to be manipulated without permission, they want to be the “legal” and “controlled” option. Norström affirms that the synthetic music market already exists and that trying to stop it would be useless, so he proposes regulating it from within, with agreements between labels and platforms, and turning it into a source of income for all actors. To combat AI content that “makes you feel good in the moment” but ultimately leaves the user feeling like they’ve “wasted their time,” Spotify offers verified authors and artists who charge for it. High tension. The announcement comes at a time when many powerful players are beginning to understand the extent of what they are risking. On May 13, a week before the investor meeting, famous producer Jack Antonoff (he has worked with Taylor Swift, Lorde and Lana Del Rey) posted on Instagram against those who use AI to make music. Norström acknowledged in the interview that there is “some negativity out there” regarding AI and called it “reasonable,” although he added that it is due to “poorly aligned AI.” swerve I mean, potify has spent months arguing that the problem with AI in music was fraud, spam, and impersonation. Now it announces that the same synthetic content, controlled and profitable, may be desirable. As we said in our analysis of the algorithmic model that Spotify has built for years linked above, the platform has been encouraging listening that prioritizes the state of mind over the identity of the artist for some time. That is, the ideal breeding ground for synthetic music. All that was left was monetization. In Xataka | We put Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music to the test: music streaming has changed and there is no longer an obvious winner

Mercadona’s engine is not the white label, but crushing its rivals in profitability by earning less per product

You may like it more or less your cataloghis business strategy or even the forecasts culinary-apocalyptic of its president, but there is something undeniable: Mercadona long ago stopped being a chain of stores to become a social phenomenon. One who depends about 30% of the food distribution market, 51% of the business of prepared dishes and that sets the pace for trends as relevant as that of the merchants. Hence everything that revolves around your finances be interesting. Especially because when studying them in detail and comparing them with other competing chains there is one fact that draws attention: Although its gross margin per sale is lower than that of other rivals, its profitability ratio is much higher. The data: 41,858 million. When Mercadona presented its 2025 economic balance, two months ago, there was a figure that made headlines: 41,858 million of euros. That was the company’s consolidated turnover, an interesting fact because it shows an annual growth of 8%, but it actually hides other even more revealing values. One of them is the turnover, net sales, which amounted to 38,178 million. In that case the increase was 7.2%. If we subtract from that figure what it cost the company to supply its merchandise (28,639 million), we obtain the first relevant piece of information: its gross marginthe money that the company earned after deducting the costs directly attributable to production and sale, such as raw materials or expenses generated during manufacturing. In this case it stood at 9,539 million. Is it important information? Yes. Above all to understand how the Valencian chain makes money and where it has its strengths (and weaknesses) compared to the competition. At first, those 9,539 million may not tell us much, but a few days ago Five Days subjected him to an analysis which does leave a couple of interesting ideas. The first is that this figure shows that Mercadona’s gross margin represents 25% of its sales. That means that of every 100 euros you earn, the supply costs take 75. From the remaining 25 euros you must get enough money to cover other bills and, above all, generate profits. It is not a bad percentage (25%) if we compare it with what the Valencian firm registered in recent years, but it is significantly lower than that managed by other competing companies. The calculations of Five Dayswhich are based on the accounts published by the companies, conclude that this margin rises to 26.2% in Dia, 27% in Eroski and 30.1% in Consum. In theory, this comparison leaves a clear reading: any of these three chains has a larger cushion, once the supply costs have been deducted, to pay the rest of the company’s bills and generate profits. And the surprise comes. The curious thing is that this ‘photo’ changes when we delve a little deeper into the accounts of Mercadona and its competitors. If we look at the operating resultwhich deducts all operating expenses, including for example salaries, rents, advertising, depreciation, transportation or energy, Mercadona is left with 2,061 million of euros. Given that Juan Orig’s chain invoices significantly more than Dia, Eroki or Consum, that operating result is also much higher in net terms. That’s logical. The curious thing is that it is also true in relative terms, based on the total income of each firm. In Mercadona this margin is 5.4% while in the case of Día it drops to 2.6%, in Eroski to 4.6% and in Consum to 2.7%. That’s the first surprise. The second comes when we go one step further and look at the net profitalready discounted the financial and fiscal expenses. It is relevant data because it basically shows what the company ‘earns’, the remainder from which the company takes the money with which it then pays dividends to its shareholders and makes reinvestments. In 2025 that benefit was almost 1,729 million, which is equivalent to 4.5% of its turnover. In Dia this percentage of global sales is 2.3%, in Consum it is 2.6% and in Eroski it remains at just 0.9%. Beyond the numbers. This mixture of percentages can be somewhat confusing, but it is very simple to read: beyond the business volume of each chain, whether it closes the year with more or less millions invoiced, Mercadona has achieved an important milestone. Despite ‘earn’ less per product Than Dia, Eroski or Consum (gross margin), their profitability ratios are much better. How have you done it? In your annual report The firm assures that it has improved its profitability thanks to the “optimization of processes”, which includes energy savings, “elimination of expenses without added value” and “advances in operational efficiency.” Only the use of ovens in ECO mode saved him two million. Outrunning the giants. Mercadona’s formula has not only allowed it to stand out from its most immediate competitors. It has also done so in comparison with other heavyweights in the sector internationally. At least in relative terms. a few weeks ago Expansion public an analysis which shows that the Valencian chain has skyrocketed its net profit margin to such a level that it surpasses giants such as Walmart, Costco or Tesco in profitability. While Mercadona’s net margin is 4.52% (4.52 euros profit per 100 euros in sales), at Walmart it is 3.1%, at Costco 3%, at Tesco 2.52%, at Ahold Delhaie 2.45%, at Dia 2.26%, at Sainsbury’s 0.73% and at Kroger it remains at 0.69%. And that’s just to name a few cases. The Valencian firm not only stands out in the photo finish With respect to its competitors, the figure for 2024 also significantly improves, when the net margin was 3.88%. Images | M. Peinado (Flickr) and Mercadona In Xataka | The gap between what pork costs on farms and in supermarkets does not stop growing. The ranchers have said enough

Apple has let a wonderful product be on assisted breathing

Those who have (have) tried the Apple Vision Prothey are clear: it is one of the most impressive technological products in all of history. The ‘wow’ effect is inevitable, and in those first minutes when you wear them it seems impossible not to believe that a product like this should have a brilliant future. That this sensation fades is equally inevitable, and just over two years after its launch it is worth asking what could have gone wrong in a product as amazing as this one. Price, of course, is one of the factors. But not the only one. The Vision Pro as an engineering tragedy. Apple has gone from trying to revolutionize the way we entertain and work to leaving the project in the second (or third) plane. The hardware is impeccable, but the high price and lack of native content and applications have turned these $3,500 glasses into a niche product. Dangerously modest sales. It is estimated that Apple has sold about 600,000 units in total of the Vision Pro, a ridiculous figure when compared to traditional iPhone sales and which is also very far from the sales of the iPad or the Apple Watch. Initial projections were optimistic, but demand ended up plummeting and Apple actually ended slowing down in production and changing the product roadmap. He hasn’t completely retired, of course, but everything he’s done sounds like the Vision Pros are on life support… or so it seems. The updates keep coming. Although there are criticisms in other sections, something that is undeniable is the attention that Apple continues to put into solving existing problems and adding new features through the new versions of your visionOS operating system. It is true that in many cases the new features are modest, but they certainly show that Apple is not neglecting that part of its product’s life cycle. The future is not Pro, but (maybe) Air. Apple ended up renewing the original model that was presented in February 2024, but the Vision Pro (2025) They were a modest update. In fact, the revision seemed more intended to clean up the inventory of components than to propose an ambitious evolution. It seemed almost pure commitment. It is inevitable to think that Apple prefers to focus on other products and segments, but that has not prevented rumors from appearing about a new and future revision of these glasses. The curious thing is that They will no longer be Pro, but Airand Apple is even looking for engineers with the theoretical intention of proposing a change of direction. That relief is expected —cheaper?— by 2027 or 2028. We will have to be patient. Few native apps. Apple boasts of having more than a million applications available for the Vision Pro, but there is fine print there. The vast majority of those tools are rescaled iPad apps that float in 2D windows. The offer of native applications to take advantage of this interesting concept of spatial computing is scarce, and there is also no “killer app” that has managed to sell these glasses. Not only that: Netflix or YouTube didn’t appear at launch, although at least YouTube did launch its native version in February 2026. That the majors in the entertainment segment did not offer that support was another nail in this disturbing coffin. Lack of content is a condemnation. But what is really problematic is that even though we are dealing with an absolutely wasted product. The photo demonstrations and especially the immersive video made us dream of a future in which we could also virtually “attend” live events from home. Concerts and sporting events seemed to be ideal to be enjoyed on the Vision Pro, but two years have passed and the offer of “spatial” content natively it is as visually spectacular as it is anecdotal. A design that was born lame. One of the fundamental problems with the Vision Pro has been in its design from the beginning. The ergonomics of the product were poor from the beginning, and in fact it could have been worse: the “flask” in the form of a battery with cable that is necessary for its operation was a solution to avoid greater evils, but it was not exactly an ideal option. The ergonomics were not perfect either, and this was confirmed by the fact that with the Vision Pro (2025) Apple provided a different headband with two support and grip zones, much more suitable for long sessions of use. Eyesight, what for?. Another of the Vision Pro’s mistakes has been the Eyesight technology, which Apple proposed as the solution to a problem that the company itself invented. Apple sacrificed weight, battery and complexity (in addition to cost) with that external screen that no one asked for and that is barely visible in normal light conditions. This cosmetic solution was intended to prevent one from losing “connection” with their surroundings when wearing the glasses, but it has probably been the most ridiculed feature of the device. He tried to avoid that feeling of total isolation, but the truth is that this product inevitably isolates the user. Not even Apple conquers the XR market. In many ways Apple tried to overcome what virtual reality glasses offer, but the reality is that the advantages of Vision Pro are too expensive. The Meta Quest 3 have made it clear that for 500 euros you can have 70 or 80% of the experience, for example. Those who have tried to compete with Apple directly, such as Samsung with its Galaxy XRthey have also ended up leaving the product something abandoned and with hardly any distribution. In both cases, these glasses end up becoming an exclusive $3,500 (or $2,000) virtual external monitor. The experience is fantastic, yes, but that has not been enough to convince users and developers. The Vision Pro as the “Lisa” of our generation. The technical milestone achieved by Apple is undeniable. The amount of technology built into the Vision Pro is astonishing, and it … Read more

There is a product prepared so that we can stop taking our cell phone out of our pocket. The glasses: Crossover 1×44

We have been wanting to find a replacement for our cell phone for years. We believed that smart watches could be a good alternative, but in reality they have ended up becoming a useful complement, without more. However with the smart and connected glasses things promise to change, especially because it is a product with a very striking formatfeatures that can be truly remarkable and a current state that promises a lot in the short term. The question is whether glasses can process everything that smartphones can do today. They may not be prepared for our current consumption of video or networks – there the mobile touch screen continues to win for the moment – but their possibilities in terms of voice and visual interaction with AI They are very interesting. There is here a first clear challenge with privacy. We already saw how Google Glass could not fight against that stigma, and suspicions have continued to appear with Ray-Ban Meta glasses. The other, that of miniaturization: can technology integrate everything necessary into these glasses that weigh just 50 grams to ensure that the experience and performance achieve their results? What we have seen seems to point to yes -the chinese manufacturers They are surprising a lot in this area—but we will have to see how it advances quickly. We talk about all this in this new episode of Crossover, so we hope you enjoy it and find it interesting. On YouTube | Crossover In Xataka | Going to an exam with AI glasses and passing it by cheating is now possible. And Valencia wants to avoid it

If the question is what differentiates Samsung from its competition, Charlie Bae, Samsung’s product director, is clear: ecosystem

The television market is more contested than ever and traditional brands they no longer monopolize sales like they used to. As happens in other areas such as the automotive or smartphones, Chinese manufacturers They have stopped competing only on price and now they also do it in benefits. Hisense reached the second place worldwide in the premium segment with a share of 24% in the third quarter of 2024. TCL, for his partsurpassed Samsung in the television segment of 80 inches or more during that same period: it maintained a share of 23% compared to Samsung’s 19%. Both Chinese brands arrived at CES 2026 presenting their own technologies based on the evolution of its MiniLED panels:Hisense with your RGB MiniLED evo capable of exceeding 110% of the BT.2020 standard, and TCL with its SQD MiniLED as an alternative to OLED. The war is no longer about inches or prices. Now the dispute it’s in the quality. In this context of reconfiguration in the mid- and high-end market, we have had the opportunity to speak with Charlie Baeresponsible for Samsung’s television division in Europe. From volume to value: Samsung’s new scenario When asked about Samsung’s two decades of leadership in the global TV market, Bae doesn’t resort to triumphalism. Aware of the change that is occurring in the market, his reading is more nuanced, almost concerned about what is coming. “The market is transforming: it is going from being driven by volume to being driven by value,” he explains. “Due to the current economic situation, people are more conscious of what they spend. During COVID they spent a lot on changing their televisions, but now, when they consider renewing their TV, they are more cautious and think about the practical side.” That consumer caution is, in Bae’s opinion, both a challenge and an opportunity. A buyer who thinks twice is not necessarily a lost buyer; He is a buyer who can be convinced with solid arguments. And Samsung wants to be the brand that gives it to them. One of Bae’s most compelling arguments in his defense against Chinese rivals is not technological, but mathematical. According to the Samsung manager, a cheap television lasts on average between three and five years. A Samsung television, he tells us, lasts more than seven or eight years on average. “Think about it like this: if your TV lasts three or four years, you can only watch one World Cup. With Samsung, you can watch two.” Added to this is the commitment of seven years of system updates operational. “Even if you bought your TV last year, you’ll still be able to use the new AI features we launch. We want people to buy with the peace of mind that their TV is a long-term investment,” says Bae. Samsung’s response to competitive pressure with Chinese brands has a key piece: artificial intelligence. “15 years ago we introduced the Smart TV and no one imagined that it would become the standard. Today no one conceives of a television without applications, without being able to watch what they want when they want. That change led us to AI. Without a doubt the era of ‘AI TV’ will continue to develop over the next five years,” he concludes. However, Bae is careful to separate the hype widespread surrounding this technology of the actual content. “Previously, AI focused on optimizing the image and sound quality of the television,” he admits. “But now it’s visible and you can ask the TV questions about recommendations, travel plans, anything. The TV is something you can talk to, not just something you watch.” According to the manager, what differentiates Samsung products is that they apply this technology in a way that is useful to users, using as an example the Football Mode with AI included in their televisions, which allows something hitherto unthinkable: silencing the noise of the stands in a football match, without turning off the sound of the commentators. “If you’re watching the game at night and don’t want to turn up the volume, you can simply mute the stands and still hear the commentary clearly,” explains Bae. Beyond AI: OLED, MiniLED and MicroRGB In addition to the revolution in sales, television display technologies have stepped on the accelerator with the democratization of MiniLED panels for mid-range televisions, the gloss enhancement and color volume What QD-OLEDs offer or the new generation of MicroRGB screens. In this sense, Bae rejects the idea of ​​a screen technology that monopolizes the entire television market. “Technology continues to evolve, and I do not think that a single one is going to dominate the market. We do not focus on a single technology; we work on all of them in parallel, because each one responds to different user needs,” says Samsung’s product director. Samsung, its manager assures, works on all fronts: from the transparent Micro LED exhibited at CES to the 130 inch Micro RGBpassing through the high-brightness OLED. But also in formats that no one expected. In fact, Bae not only assures that Samsung will continue developing its catalog to offer different screen technologies, it is also committed to the flexibility of screen sizes and formats. All this in a context of televisions with increasingly larger diagonals, and living rooms with increasingly less square meters. “There are consumers who prefer small screens. We have The Movingstylea 27-inch touch screen that you can move around the house. In Europe, the number of single-person households is growing and homes are getting smaller, so you may be interested in a small, portable screen, not one with many inches,” insists the executive. In addition to the new panel technologies that are arriving in the brands’ catalogues, Samsung also highlights the arrival of other innovations that contribute to improving the visual experience, such as Glare Free technology, the anti-reflective system developed by Samsung that eliminates reflections and glare from windows and lights on the television screen. “Spain is a country with a lot of sun, so if you are … Read more

They are a “product” and their CEOs treat them as such

The endless story of managers determined to project that image of closeness and familiarity returns again and again, but it no longer works as before. On too many occasions, seeing them look for that unnatural naturalnessinstead of reinforcing the brand, opens the door to an uncomfortable conversation where each gesture goes viral and is overanalyzed. A few weeks ago it was Chris Kempczinski, CEO of McDonald’s, where in a viral video He takes a hilariously small bite of his new burger (or, as he insists ad nauseam, his new “product”). The result produces between laughter and discomfort and of course, and the worst thing for the brand, a zero desire to try that ‘Big Arch’. Of course, other leading fast food brands such as Burger King or Wendy’s slipped out and rushed to parody the scene, marking the distance and greatly enjoying their products in equally forced videos. From “prize food” to product In one of the first scenes of ‘The Killer‘ (2023), the thriller directed by David Fincher, its protagonist played by Michael Fassbender defines his personality before the viewer with a very simple gesture: he buys a one-euro hamburger from McDonald’s, takes away the bread and eats the meat for its caloric content and protein balance. What three years ago was an example of how meticulous a murderer was in fiction, has become a reflection of how we see fast food in a world where macros they direct our diet. Returning to Kempczinski, and beyond the anecdotal, the viral or the easy joke, there is something that appears quite clearly: we have gone almost without realizing it from seeing fast food as a guilty pleasure or a reward meal, to perceive it as a product designed and optimized. Gradually we have managed to separate the fast food of the traditional idea of ​​food; we have become Fassbender. What is striking on this occasion is that this delegitimization does not come solely from the consumer, but comes from above. So, what happens when not even those who produce these dishes really consider it “food”? We cannot know with certainty whether Chris Kempczinski’s statements, in which he claims to eat at his restaurants up to four times a weekthey reflect reality. What does seem evident is the contradiction: they sell products that they themselves avoid or delegitimize, in a very similar way to what happens with CEOs of large technology companies like Apple or Meta, who strictly limit the use of screens for their children despite the fact that they live off those same products. The first case was that of Steve Jobs’ children raised without an iPad in their hands, but this fact has been played non-stop in the Silicon Valley environment. A mismatch between the public image and private decisions that we now see in the restaurant industry. The change in terminology is not a whim of a CEO, but is directly related with social perception of fast food. What was once a modern, convenient and somewhat functional concept has become a food that is really criticized, observed, and consumed with greater suspicion, especially by millennials or Generation Z. These generations, more aware of the ingredients and the impact that these ultra-processed foods have on their health, have transformed the way we consume and relate to food. Supposedly food. (Unsplash) In the United States, for example, the popularity of slop bowls (what we also know as poke bowls), with customizable, efficient and, in principle, healthy salads and bowls, they demonstrate how food has sometimes become functional, aesthetic and even somewhat performative. From the illusion of the healthy bowls of chains like ‘Chipotle’ to spaces that are standard bearers of life healthy like supermarkets’Erewhon‘, with concepts such as macrobiotic diet and smoothies with spirulina that makes your wallet shake, consumption linked to a lifestyle more than the food itself is evident. Assembled food, not cooked If a few years ago concepts such as food were questioned and entered into continuous debate transgenicToday, in an era that is very aware of healthy living, what has been altered is our way of understanding consumption, nutrition and our relationship with the products that fill our plates. In parallel, the extreme industrialization food has also transformed what we eat; Although it is true that culinary tradition remains deeply rooted in many countries, certain foods or “products” such as slop bowls They seem more assembled than cooked, turning them into a functional product ready to be sold and consumed but completely removed from the experience of “feeding.” They are closer to what we could call food engineering, with a logic of optimization where they provide us with the necessary nutrients, with durability, but far from concern for flavor or culinary creativity; almost as if we were talking about “astronaut food“We find therefore that even foods that seem healthy They are designed for marketing. In recent years, a growing part of society has stopped associating these chains with “food” in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, European and American studies show that many consumers see ultra-processed foods as artificial and unnatural, mentally classifying them in a different category to “real” foods, even though they consume them occasionally for convenience or pleasure. McDonald’s or Burger King operate right in that field, where you consume for that very specific pleasure they generate. You don’t want just any hamburger, you specifically want what a Whopper or a Big Mac makes you want. Eat to create your identity Social networks also play an essential role in the perception of food as a product through an insatiable search for the viral, iconic or instagrammable. With different challenges or viral challenges, the attempt is to capture attention in seconds and for that product to be seen, shared and consumed. However, this search for virality is not the exclusive heritage of these fast food or ultra-processed food chains. The rise of the trend healthy has adopted exactly the same dynamics: from recipes with the label RealFood to healthy versions … Read more

Toni Urban, Pixel Product Manager, about the Pixel 10a

The new Pixel 10a comes to the fore to compete once again in the mid-range, a territory that over the years has become more ambitious and also more demanding. Each new generation tries to get a little closer to the experience of the top modelsincorporating advances that previously seemed reserved for more expensive devices. However, in this process there is a balance that does not depend only on technology, but on the ability to keep the essence of this segment intact. And it is precisely at that point where Google’s new proposal seems to be located. This balance does not arise in isolation, but from the product development process itself. In order to better understand this approach, we have spoken with Tony UrbanPixel Product Manager at Google, directly involved in this generation. Their answers allow us to contextualize the decisions made in the new Pixel 10a and frame its proposal within the evolution that the range has followed in recent years. Pixel 10a technical sheet GOOGLE PIXEL 10a DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT 153.9mm x 73.0mm x 9.0mm 183g SCREEN 6.3 inch pOLED Resolution: 1080 x 2424 422 pixels per inch Refresh up to 120 Hz Brightness up to 2,000 nits in HDR Maximum brightness of up to 3,000 nits outdoors Corning Gorilla Glass 7i PROCESSOR Google Tensor G4 Titan M2 Security Coprocessor MEMORY 8GB STORAGE 128GB / 256GB BATTERY and charging 5,100 mAh Wire: 45W Wireless: 10W REAR CAMERAS Major: 48 MP with f/1.7 aperture and 82º field of view Wide angle: 13 MP with f/2.2 aperture and 120º field of view FRONT CAMERA 13 MP with f/2.2 aperture and 96.1º field of view Operating system Android 16 SOUND Dual stereo speakers two microphones CONNECTIVITY Wi-Fi 6E 5G sub 6 GHz Dual SIM (nanoSIM + eSIM) Bluetooth 6 NFC USB-C (USB 2.0) OTHERS IP68 certification On-screen fingerprint reader PRICE 549 euros Pixel 10a, an update that focuses on coherence The Pixel 10a largely maintains the design that was so well received in the previous generation: straight edges with gently rounded corners, a compact format and that feeling of lightness that, when we hold it in our hands, does not give up transmitting solidity. It is when turning it that the most visible changes begin to appear. The rear now adopts a completely flat surface and any trace of relief on the camera module disappearsa discreet adjustment in appearance, but significant within the silent evolution with which Google has been fine-tuning the visual identity of the Pixel family for some time. Behind this iteration there is also a reflection on what those who choose the A series really expect. As Urban tells us, the development has focused on the aspects that these users value most, with photography at the center. “Having a great camera is important for everyone, no matter what budget they have. And we know that at Pixel we do it really well, so being able to take many of those learnings from the Pro range to the A series is something we know how to execute very well.” That same logic explains the commitment to a completely flat rear: “In this generation we were able to do it with a completely flat surface… because we were able to transfer a large part of the physical optics to computational photography in the software layer and in the processor. “You still get the same great photos you’re used to in the Pixel family, but in that nice flat format.” There are decisions that are not explained only from the technical sheet, but from the idea of ​​balance that defines a device. On the Pixel 10a, one of them is the continuity of your processing platform: Google is betting on it again G4 tensioner already present in the Pixel 9aa detail that does not go unnoticed in a newly presented phone. Far from being an isolated gesture, this choice points to a concrete way of understanding the evolution within the mid-range, as our interviewee explains to us. “We had to make tough engineering decisions to maintain that $549 price point, which we’ve maintained for four generations. The chipset is part of that consideration. We knew we could still deliver the best of Google’s AI and the best camera experience with the chip we had; we didn’t feel like we were sacrificing quality, and we still made important improvements.” Beyond that internal decision, the Pixel 10a introduces noticeable advances in everyday use. One of the most obvious appears in the 6.3-inch Actua screen, now capable of reaching up to 3,000 nits of peak brightness and offer better legibility outdoors, accompanied by improvements in connectivity and loading speed that reinforce the feeling of an updated device without altering its position within the mid-range. They are less striking changes than a leap in processor, but which many users can appreciate. This progressive evolution also extends to photography and functions supported by artificial intelligence, two classic pillars of the Pixel family. The camera system arrives practically unchanged in terms of figures, with a 48 MP main sensor accompanied by a 13 MP ultra wide angle. To improve the experience, it relies on functions such as Best Shot, include me either Camera Coach. It remains to be seen, however, how all this balance translates into real use. Sustained performance, temperature management or the behavior of the device on a day-to-day basis will be key to understanding how far this proposal really goes. It will be something that we will analyze in detail in Xataka when we can test it thoroughly. Until then, and at least from what we can see, the Pixel 10a can be a very valid option for those willing to spend 549 euros in exchange for the more direct Google and Android experience within the mid-range. Images | Xataka | Google In Xataka | The CEO of Nothing is clear that we do not need a high-end mobile phone every year. A mix of RAM crisis and common sense

Musk doesn’t have the best model or the best product, but he has something more important in the AI ​​race: SpaceX

Elon Musk has done it again: he has changed one of his companies from the right pocket to the left. In 2016, when his company Solar City was in the doldrums, he took advantage of the fact that Tesla was going like a rocket to save the company. Now it is xAI that needs a push in the age of artificial intelligence and, after a few brief rumorsconfirmation came: SpaceX has purchased xAI. Or what is the same: an Elon Musk company has bought another Elon Musk company. It’s an ideal move, but also a morrocotudo mess. In short. The announcement came late into our night. As part of a vertical integration, aerospace will absorb the operations of xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company. It was an extremely rare agreement. When it occurs a business purchasewe know the numbers, but here we only have some ideas about the goal. Musk has been deliberately opaque and has justified the movement as a restructuring to guarantee “freedom of expression”, with a story based on energy, the development of technology and something we have been talking about for some time: the need for exploit outer space as a source of energy and giant heatsink for the increasingly numerous data centers. One million satellites. In fact, the operation came shortly after we learned that SpaceX had filed with the US FCC a project to launch one million Starlink satellites. Currently, there are about 9,000, plus another few thousand companies like Amazon or chinese satellites and Europeans…and astronomers are already complaining about how difficult it is to observe beyond low orbit. With a million satellites from SpaceX alone, the amount of potential space debris will increase stratospherically, but Starlink is not a simple satellite system to have Internet anywhere on the planet: They are potential data centers. Musk himself, when companies like amazon either Google They began to be very vocal about the need for moving data centers into spacepointed out that SpaceX already had them and that it was easy to convert its satellites into computing centers. In space there is Unlimited, uninterrupted energyheat dissipation is much simpler because air or water is not needed as on Earth and the information is transmitted to terrestrial centers using lasers, eliminating the need for Expensive fiber optic interconnections. SpaceX works. And, in Musk’s statement, it is stated that this demand for energy and computing power to feed AI is almost impossible to cover with terrestrial solutions, so the most logical thing is the space exodus from data centers. And, of course, one plus one equals two: SpaceX has the infrastructure and xAI needs it. But beyond the synergy, there is another reality. SpaceX has become a solid and profitable company. It is the only one that, right now, can routinely transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station. It has become an essential piece for both NASA and the Department of Defense and, in addition, it has the aforementioned Starlink system that has crept in, perhaps too much, into the communications infrastructure of countries like Ukraine. xAI burns money. On the other hand, xAI shows the symptoms of a company focused on artificial intelligence. This valued at more than $230 billion and has raised several tens of billions in several rounds of financing, but is burning money at a rate of approximately one billion a month. This is typical, as we say, of companies in the growth phase, and the executives themselves have stated that they have plans and resources to keep spending aggressively, but everything has a limit. xAI requires enormous amounts of energy, resources, computing and is developing its own chips. All of that costs money, and putting data centers in space with existing infrastructure like Starlink’s can help ease the burden. In the economic and energy sense, it is a brilliant operation. When other technology companies want to start filling the space with their data centers, SpaceX will already be there. Morrocotudo mess. Therefore, and in the end, what Musk has done is unite a company in an aggressive investment phase with another that is solid and has established contacts with the US government. SpaceX is the highest xAI carrying vehicle and it looks like a win-win manual. Now, it’s also a tremendous mess. Because xAI is not just xAI: it is (Twitter), and now SpaceX has all that power under one umbrella. xAI manages military intelligence and we have already mentioned that Ukraine threw itself into the arms of Starlinkrelying on its infrastructure during the conflict with Russia. SpaceX is no longer just an aerospace company, it is that and much more: a brain, a social network with private data of tens of millions of people. And in a Europe that is fighting for their technological sovereignty and information protection, SpaceX can go from being a partner for a specific mission to something to look askance at. Image | The White House (edited) In Xataka | From $100 billion romance to silent divorce: NVIDIA and OpenAI’s relationship is disintegrating

The regulations allow you to take home a product from three weeks ago

We go to the supermarket, we pick up a package of eggs where it says in big letters “Category A” or “Fresh Eggs” and we assume that those chickens They laid the eggs a couple of days ago. But the reality is very different, and the legal and biological sections follow very different paths. And it’s something easy to see if we look closely. on best-before dates and if we do the necessary math we will see that what the law considers “fresh” can take almost a month in the world. Many doubts. Seeing this, the most logical questions we can have in this case is if it is safe to consume or even if it is legal. And the reality is that it is. But there is a small print in the 28-day regulations that you need to know before deciding whether to make a curdled tortilla or homemade mayonnaise. The 28 day clock. To understand what we are buying, we must first go to the BOE and to European regulations. In this case, category A eggs —those that we usually find on the supermarket shelves— have a very specific commercial life cycle. According to marketing regulations, these eggs must be classified, marked and packaged within 10 days of laying. But this is where we have the key information: the best before date is set in a maximum of 28 days from laying. That is, the law allows an egg to be legally sold and consumed up to four weeks after it comes out of the hen. In this way, as they collect the labeling technical guides and AESAN itselfthat is the deadline to supply them to the consumer. Therefore, under the legal umbrella, “fresh” does not mean “placed yesterday.” Means “within the 28 day window“. How to know the real age. This is where we find the picaresque and calculation that many popularizers like the doctor Fernández Viso has shared on his TikTok account. In this case, the packaging rarely says the “selling date”, because it is not mandatory, if the ‘best before’ date appears. And with this you can do a kind of reverse engineering. To do this, let’s give an example. If we are in the supermarket on January 8 and see a container of eggs with the best before date of January 18, the operation is quite simple. The deadline in this case is 28 days after placement, and if they expire on January 18, it means they were placed around December 21. That is why nothing fresh. Its meaning. Although originally this time frame was limited to 21 days in order to guarantee proximity and consumption a little more, the reality is that it was changed to 28 days to reduce food waste. It is not that the egg magically stays “ultra fresh” until the 28th, it is that it has been prioritized that they do not end up in the trash if they are still suitable for consumption. The truly fresh one. There is a category that is much more recent, and it is the one that says “extra” or “extra fresh” on its packaging. The EU Delegated Regulation specifies that this term can only be used during the first 9 days after laying. If you see that label, you are guaranteed real freshness. If you don’t see it, you are looking at a standard egg that can be from 10 to 28 days old. The problem is that, in the consumer’s head, the term “fresh” on the shelf is interpreted loosely. Good business practice guides recognize this disparity: the legality of labeling does not match what people intuitively understand by freshness. Furthermore, the common commercial practice of mixing lots on shelves, which is legal as long as traceability is respectedmakes us lose the perception of the exact age of each container of eggs. Food safety. Knowing the age of the egg is not only a question of gastronomic quality, it is a safety issue. The AESAN and the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) warn that extending the storage time increases the risk of Salmonella poisoning. Risk mitigation. This is a risk that grows exponentially the longer eggs are stored, both in the store and at home. Therefore, the experts’ recommendations are clear, and depend on the calendar we follow. Specifically, for cooking, that is, for the egg to be well set or cooked, it can be rushed until the best-before date without problem. But for raw consumption such as mayonnaise or tartars, freshness is critical. In this case, it is recommended to use eggs that are more than two weeks away from expiration. Images | Jakub Kapusnak In Xataka | Having a cup of coffee as soon as you wake up seems like a great idea. Science has something to say about it

They are the largest product experiment in the world

Tu Le, founder of Sino Auto Insightshe explained in the podcast High Capacity How what Toyota took 36 months or more to develop (from design to production), companies like BYD or XPeng complete in 12 or 16 months. Modular platforms, digital simulations, OTA updates… all of this has replaced classic industrial processes. And they test features that almost no Western manufacturer would dare to include. Why is it important. What Toyota took three years to develop (design, prototype, validate, produce…), companies like BYD or XPeng execute in just over a year. And without reducing quality. What they do is change the process: They use modular platforms that stretch without redesigning everything. Digital simulations instead of physical prototypes. And software updates that improve the car after purchasing it, as Tesla already marked the rest of the industry. It’s a real-time product experiment. If a feature is unused or buggy, they send an OTA update after a few days. If a model is not selling well, they update it in 12 months. It is the logic of consumer electronics applied to the car. In detail. Chinese cars incorporate features that in the West might seem absurd or reckless. BYD, for example, sells models with drones on the roof that can fly out following us. NIO installs chips whose performance is disabled for months until an update activates them, which serves to increase the value of the car over time instead of simply depreciating it. They are proposals that reflect that they understand a consumer much younger than the average Mercedes buyer in Europe, hyper-digitized and accustomed to everything responding instantly. BYD’s ultra-fast charging promises times “as fast as refueling gasoline”. XPeng and NIO assisted driving systems They already operate on long-distance trips with minimal driver intervention. The aforementioned Tu Le and his colleague Lei Xing drove from Beijing to Shenzhen using the XPeng system for 90% of the trip. They then repeated the route on a NIO using only battery swapping. Both experiences worked. Between the lines. The founders of these companies do not come from the automotive world. Li Xiang (Li Auto), Li Bin (NIO) and He Xiaopeng (XPeng) come from the world of the Internet and apps. When they decided to make cars, they didn’t start thinking about factories or supply chains. They thought about user experience, interface and functionality. Then they learned to manufacture from that. This change in the process explains a lot: a traditional manufacturer begins to optimize thinking about industrial efficiency, one born in technology optimizes for the user and then decides how to take that to production. The context. China sold 25 million vehicles in 2025. One in every two was electric or hybrid: more than 12 million units. In that mass market, any product experiment has instant and scale feedback. If something works, it is replicated within weeks. If it fails, it is corrected just as quickly. BYD went from 700,000 units six years ago to 4.6 million in 2025manufacturing its own chips and batteries. Vertical control that allows you to iterate faster than any competitor dependent on external suppliers. And now what? Volkswagen invested in XPeng and will launch vehicles based on its platform this year. Stellantis bought 19% of Leapmotor in 2023. Ford licensed battery technology from CATL in 2022. They are implicit recognitions that the Chinese experiment works and the West needs to learn from it. Renault directly went there Learn how to build a cheap electric car in a short time. The question is not whether Chinese cars are better, but whether the rest of the industry can adopt this model of accelerated development without breaking everything built over a century. In Xataka | The year of Chinese consolidation in Spain: MG, Omoda and BYD close a spectacular 2025 and are among the best sellers Featured image | XPeng

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.