“If you put in 95% effort, it’s 0%,” a 22-year-old CEO defends the 996 day as a voluntary “product”

In late 2024, Daksh Gupta, founder and CEO of a small Silicon Valley AI startup, wrote a tweet that lit up the networks against him. He said that his startup did not offer work-life balance and he was looking for employees who were capable of committing to such a level with his company that he did not care. work 100 hours a week with weekends included. In his day, he defended this time requirement with a phrase that went viral: in such a competitive market, according to statements collected by Inc.com: “No one cares about the third best company, not even the second best in any software category. If you put in 95% of your effort, it’s like you’re not putting in any effort at all.” The origin of the misunderstanding. Months later, the young CEO has returned to give explanations about that controversy on the podcast The Peel with Turner Novakand what counts changes the photo quite a bit. Gupta says that the famous “996” model (from nine in the morning to nine at night six days a week) was not even born as a company norm. The statements came from an interview for him San Francisco Standard about the social life of the young founders of Silicon Valley. They asked him what they did for fun, and he summarized the fashion of the moment: “996, lift weights, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, run, eat meat and eggs and marry young,” said Gupta. Someone took that phrase out of context. He became the headline, and the headline became controversial. However, Gupta does not deny that the “996” shift model is being applied in his startup. He acknowledges that his team works from nine to nine thirty at night, and a good part of the weekend. But he rejects the “996” label without nuance. In his opinion, that term: “implies imposition and sounds like a 2008 factory in a third world country,” says the young CEO, and that implies something that he wants to avoid at all costs: imposition. Work, according to Gupta, is a product. The central idea defended by the CEO of Greptile in the interview with Turner Novak is that the jobs in his company are, literally, “a product.” It offers high salaries, an unusually generous stock package for a startup in its expansion phase, and tough technical projects in a small team. In exchange, he asks for total surrender. To avoid surprises, he says he treats each candidate “like an investor.” It teaches them the company’s revenue, growth, customer satisfaction. It lets them talk to employees and investors before signing anything. “The product is that: if it appeals to you, then you should join us. I’m going to be very transparent about what it is,” notes Gupta. Anyone looking for a comfortable schedule and stability, according to Gupta, simply doesn’t fit: “that’s not the product here,” he sums up bluntly. He is not the only apostle of extreme effort. Despite being a rather unique approach to the employee/shareholder concept, Gupta has not invented any formula that is not already applied in other Silicon Valley companies. Lucy Guoco-founder of Scale AI, advocates 90-hour weeks as the desirable standard. Other young founders have changed the parties and social life by 92 hour dayswithout alcohol involved. Great sharks of Silicon Valley like elon musk and Sergei Brin have been asking for years between 60 and 80 hours per week to your templates. The curious thing is the moment. China banned 996 by law five years ago. The People’s Supreme Court declared it illegal in 2021, after several employee deaths for excess hours. Silicon Valley is resurrecting, almost proudly, the same workday model that Beijing dismissed as a tremendous mistake. The other side of the argument. Not the entire ecosystem applauds. Suranga Chandratillake, Partner at Balderton Capital, believe that this speech comes mainly from investors who never founded anything and only seek a quick return on their investment at the expense of overexertion by employees. Amelia Miller, from the employment platform Iveegoes further and assures that requiring seven days of work without a break is directly a bad sign when it comes to investing. The numbers give him part reason. According to CB Insightsthe exhaustion of the founding team is behind 5% of the startup closures analyzed. It is not the main cause, but it is not an anecdote either. Meanwhile, OpenAI publishes reports calling for four day weeks thanks to AI, just when other companies in the sector demand the opposite from their engineers. That contradiction, for the moment, remains unanswered. In Xataka | Working more than 60 hours a week is not healthy: Japan is starting to learn it the hard way Image | Unsplash (Paymo), The Peel

“The most beautifully designed thing most customers own is an Apple product”

I have a brand new 15″ MacBook Pro from 2027. It is the one with the TouchBar, the thin one and the one with the butterfly keyboard, but also one of the best examples of an Apple that has remained in the past: the Apple that prioritized design over functionality. Because my MacBook Pro gets incredibly hot, its butterfly keyboard has left it useless, and the fact that it came with just four USB-C ports in 2017 didn’t make any sense. The radical change of latest MacBook Pro shows that Apple realized that a professional laptop needs to have ports and it does not need to be thin than a Macbook Air. However, the arrival of John Ternus at the head of Apple announces winds of change, a change that will return design to where it should be in decision-making within the company and that responds to a single idea. Get Apple’s design team out of the basement. More or less The return to the Apple of design This year, Apple’s back to school will have an important change. Ternus will begin his “mandate” on September 1. Ternus comes from cacharreoof hardware, and will replace a businessman as a Tim Cook that has transformed the entire operations of the Californian company. Something logical that we can think is that, in a company as large as Apple, the CEO is not so important because decisions are made together and, although it is true that there are strategies with which it is difficult to turn a corner, the vision of the company is that of long mandates in which being able to maintain what worked from the pastbut seeing where they can develop new ideas and lines of business. In this sense, and as point Mark Gurman’s Bloomberg newsletter, Ternus has been closely supervising Apple’s hardware and software design team for a few months now. According to Gurman himself, he has been investing a considerable amount of time with the industrial design team, one that, in recent years, would not have seen its best period. Apple devices continue to give great importance to design, but after questionable decisions, that team took a backseat within the company. Yes with Jony Ive They came to dominate the conversation, weighing heavily on the appearance and functionality of the devices (that famous ‘form over function’ or “design over functionality”), the last decade they sank within the company’s balance. Jeff Williams, COO, took over after Ive’s departure in 2019but when Williams left at the end of last year, the team had even lost more relevance within the company. As an example, there was no senior design position within Cook’s leadership team. Now, according to Bloomberg, Ternus intends to revitalize the department and, in an internal meeting, told them that Apple will continue to focus “in design, since design is fundamental to what we do at Apple”. In fact, the company’s new boss went further, noting that “the most beautifully designed thing most customers own is an Apple product. We need to make sure that remains the case.” I started by talking about my MacBook because it is one of the most representative cases of those devices of design over functionality, but not the only one in Apple’s history. Famous are other devices like that iPod Shuffle to which you had to send messages by morse code with the cable controls because it didn’t have buttons or the Magic Mousewhich remains, to this day, the official mouse sold by the company. But that Ternus wants to return to that idea that design is vital for the company It does not necessarily imply returning to those devices. The current MacBook Pro or the mac studio and mac mini Full of ports are examples of beautiful, but functional devices. own MacBook Neo It was born under the direct supervision of Ternus and has only two USC-C (and one very slow), but this is due to a limitation due to the processor used. Simply put, I understand that Ternus wants to once again have people from the design department having a say in the new Apple, one that will face the launch of the new products in the short term. iPhone 18 Prothe iPhone 18 that it seems that they will go to 2027, the new Siria long-awaited renewal of the AirPodsthe rumored foldable iPhone or some glasses. In Xataka |

AI is not a product, it is a weapon. And Europe has none

A few days ago the Government of Spain showed its chest announcing that the EU AI Regulatory Sandbox project had been a success. It is difficult to understand why, but while these efforts to regulate require notable investments (in this particular project, 4.3 million euros), there is a stark and forceful reality: Spain and the EU are light years ahead of the US and China in terms of innovation in AI. And in this situation, how will the EU survive? Chronology of events. That was already a problem before, but each new advance of the US or Chinese frontier models makes that hole seem bigger and bigger. We have seen it with what happened to Claude Fable 5which has been vetoed following the order of the US Government. The recent chronology allows us to explain what happened: April 8, 2026: Anthropic releases Claude Mythos Previewa model that according to them is so powerful in terms of cybersecurity that they avoid releasing it publicly. Your capacity is being confirmed by companies like Mozilla, which is one of the privileged to be able to use it. June 10, 2026: Anthropic launches Claude Fable 5a kind of layered version of Claude Mythos Preview. According to the benchmarks, the model is a qualitative leap, but it has several security measures to avoid being used maliciously. Its availability was initially public in the different plans (free and paid) of Claude.ai. As of June 22, it would only be possible to access it through the API. That was the plan, at least. June 12, 2026: The US Government forces Anthropic to turn off the tap and not allow anyone who is not a US citizen to access Fable 5. Anthropic then decides cut off access to absolutely everyone to this model. AI is already a weapon. All this development of events, still in full effervescencedemonstrates something important: AI has stopped being just a tool and has become a technological weapon. It is the confirmation of that Oppenheimer moment which we already alluded to in the past. Oppenheimer Moment. What happened with the atomic bomb – a technology that the US Government ended up appropriating – is partly happening now with models like Fable 5: it is the state that ends up having the power, whether we like it or not, so that the world can use it. Its creators, Anthropic, have practically no say even though they have already tried to defend their position. with the scandal of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense. I’ll see who I let use the AI. The US decision to cut off access to a commercial AI model is unprecedented. Hiding behind the protection of National Security, the Government of this country has decided that Fable 5 was simply too dangerous for other countries to use. He has exerted absolute control over a disturbing technology, and he has done it without anyone being able to do anything. That access to AI can be vetoed overnight due to government imposition once again makes it clear that those who invest in these models have a strategic advantage that can be definitive. China takes another stance. In fact, China is currently proposing a radically opposite strategy: open weight AI models are the norm among its large companies and its startups. DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi or Xiaomi Mimo are some of the clear examples of how it is possible to develop advanced AI models with another approach. At the moment China has not vetoed any of these models, and all of them have become a great resource for companies around the world to improve and use. Even North American companies do it: Cursor’s Composer 2.5 model It is nothing more than a derived version of Kimi 2.5. AI as a commercial weapon. What we are seeing is another episode of the great trade war that both the US and China are maintaining at a technological level. Both play with their resources to put pressure on the other party—or the entire world. But before, the pressure was exerted with things like advanced AI chips or rare earths. Now the US has also decided that the AI ​​software itself (the models) can be used in the same way. And the companies that develop them don’t seem to be able to do much about it. Spain boasts about what it shouldn’t. But as we said, in Spain what we have are announcements of regulatory efforts. It is true that the intention is surely good and that the idea is reasonable (to develop the technology responsibly), but that focus has proven to be a problem: while Spain boasts of being a pioneer in the application of AI regulation in Europe, our country barely has its own tools in this area. ALIAthe model focused on co-official languages, remains in a surprising background, and what is We have an agency, AESIAwhich once again demonstrates that ambition to regulate while neglecting the other part: that of innovating. Europe is not much better. What is happening in Spain is almost a reflection of what we are seeing in Europe. Only the French company Mistral is trying to advance with its own AI models, but for now its developments They are very far from the frontier models of the US or China. In Spain we have Magnificbut this startup is not so much a developer of its own models as an aggregator of those already existing in the creative field. Atomic bombs on one hand, forks on the other. It is probably an exaggeration to compare Fable 5 with the atomic bomb, but one thing is clear: the US has AI models that are effectively far above any European development. It is in a sense as if they had a bomb and Europe was trying to compete with a fork. What experts have been saying for almost three years is that the path chosen by the EU is a mistake. What is needed is investment in innovation, and not with government projects, … Read more

“Entire boxes are bought, there is a lack of product and we are producing 24 hours a day”

“I’m the typical nostalgic millennial, I admit that.” This is how our colleague Laura Sacristán of Xataka Mobile the article in which he narrates his experience completing the World Cup sticker album… digitally. It is a phrase that could summarize the entire text that is to come. And if one feels like Don Quixote in front of the windmills when trying to complete the Panini World Cup album. The one that the company has launched with the punctuality of someone who knows they have a good business on their hands. Among the strength of the world fifespeculation and the feeling of nostalgia, one buys the album assuming that it will be almost impossible to complete it. Working piecework But it doesn’t seem enough. “It had never started this way, especially in Spain and Portugal. In Brazil it has always been crazy, but, this year, there is a lack of product and we are producing 24 hours a day. We did not expect it” The statements are from Lluís Torrent, general director of Panini in Spain, to elDiario.eswho accepts that there is a shortage of stock in the stickers that our country demands. And the company claims that it had not seen the same fever for World Cup cards in our country as this year. Although the public is loyal to each year’s album, the World Cups have something special and that can also be seen in the results account by adding more followers. “There are adults who have reengaged. There is hunger and whole boxes are bought“, explains Torrent to the digital media. And our colleague confirms it. If she has made the leap to digital it is for a very simple reason: desperation. “They are sold out everywhere” is the answer she has heard the most in recent days. Fed up, she has forgotten the physical card. “The cards also serve as a socialization tool, you have to know how to organize them, exchange them, “They have a positive aspect of coexistence and sociability,” says Torrent. The problem is when the speculator takes over that “positive aspect of coexistence and sociability.” To both Laura Sacristán, Torrent, and everyone who approaches a kiosk, those who run them give the same answer: “people take away whole boxes.” The shortage remains in the market three weeks after this report from The Newspaper. The person who spoke then was Narayan, head of a kiosk in Sant Cugat del Vallés, stating that even they themselves have had larger orders rejected for their points of sale. More than 600 kilometers further away, in the Puerta Cerrada square in the heart of Madrid, another kiosk gives the same answer to some children who are trying to quench their thirst for stickers. Children who can go look for the ones that interest them most just a few hundred meters away. In the lower part of the Rastro, the fans They meet every Sunday to exchange the repeated stickers and complete the collection. Or buy them. Because the truth is that there is no shortage of those who resell the most sought-after stickers. On digital buying and selling portals it is not difficult to find individual trading cards for 30 euros (the equivalent of 20 sealed envelopes). if we talk about Cristiano Ronaldo either Messi. For an “extra sticker”, the stickers premium that Panini has launched along with the standard collection with another 80 prints, individual prices start at 50 euros and in some they reach 150 euros. Despite everything, Torrent defends that there is the same probability of an envelope containing the Lamine Yamal sticker as it is of JK Duverne, the Haitian defender who plays for the Belgian team KAA Gent. This World Cup, furthermore, is of special interest for collectors because everything indicates, if no one can remedy it, that it will be the last for Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Neymar. But also, the collection is broader than ever because more teams than ever play in the World Cup. The result: 980 cards that represent the players of the 48 teams that complete the tournament this time. A figure never seen in Panini’s World Cup album and that falls like May water on the Italian company that this year will bill more than 100 million euros in Spain. A tiny part of the global result that is estimated at 1,400 million euros in this edition, they point out in Seville newspaper. An empire built on two factories, one in Italy and the other in Brazil. An empire built on childhood anxiety, hunger accumulated during the four years of the World Cup cycle and, above all, the nostalgic thirst that seems insatiable among the millennial generation. Photo | Panini and FIFA In Xataka | We are in 2026, but you will only see part of the World Cup in 4K. The “shitification” of the platforms gives us back DTT

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

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.