WhatsApp Business prohibits access to ChatGPT, Luzia and all generalist chatbots in its business API. Only one survives

Meta has updated the conditions of use of its WhatsApp business API to prohibit access to third-party generalist chatbots, as reported TechCrunch. The measure, which comes into effect on January 15, 2026, affects tools such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Luzia and Poke. Meta AI From then on, it will be the only generalist AI assistant that will remain operational on the platform. Why is it important. WhatsApp has more than 3 billion monthly active users, which has turned the platform into an unrivaled distribution channel for AI companies. The decision consolidates Meta’s control over the AI ​​experience in its ecosystem and eliminates direct competitors that had free access to its huge user base. The blow to Luzia. The Spanish chatbot, created after the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, went viral precisely due to its integration with WhatsApp. Its star feature—the automatic transcription of voice audio—turned Luzia in a phenomenon. WhatsApp later incorporated this same function natively. That viral hook led Luzia to reach one million users very quickly. At the beginning of this year, in a report in which we analyze his state at that timehad 60 million users in 40 countries, having raised 30 million euros in financing. The startup operates both as a standalone mobile application for iOS and Android… …as a service integrated into WhatsApp, although with more limited functions in this latest version. Between the lines. Meta justifies the change by arguing that generalist chatbots generate an excessive volume of messages that overloads its systems and requires a type of support for which the company is not prepared. However, the context suggests other types of motivations: WhatsApp’s business API is one of the main sources of income for the platform. Meta charges businesses based on different message templates: marketing, utilities, authentication, and support. The problem is that there was no specific category for AI chatbots, which meant that companies like OpenAI or Luzia were accessing WhatsApp’s infrastructure and audience without paying for it. The money trail. During the presentation of results for the first quarter of 2025, Mark Zuckerberg stressed that enterprise messaging was “the next big opportunity” to generate income. “Enterprise messaging should be the next pillar of our business,” he explained. In this context, allowing competitors like OpenAI to distribute their products for free through WhatsApp is not only a technical burden, but a lost business opportunity. Meta has clarified that the ban does not affect companies that use AI as an auxiliary tool to serve their customers. A travel agency operating a customer service bot or a bank with an automated assistant can continue to operate without problems. The key distinction is that AI should be an “incidental or auxiliary” functionality, not the core product. ANDn game. Luzia will have to concentrate its efforts on its native mobile applications. The startup still operates without a defined business model, financing itself exclusively through venture capital. In January 2025, its CEO Álvaro Higes explained that its future strategy will likely include advertisements and sponsored links. ChatGPT, Perplexity and the rest of the generalist chatbots have less than three months to prepare their departure from WhatsApp. For users, the transition will mean migrating to these services’ native apps or settling for Meta AI as the only in-app option. In Xataka | If the question is whether your company can put you in a WhatsApp group without asking you, the answer is a 42,000 euro fine Featured image | Mika BaumeisterLuzia

For years the Airbus A380 symbolized European power against Boeing. Today it survives as a colossus without the kingdom

The Airbus A380 was born as a huge dream, almost a declaration of intentions of the European industry in front of the Boeing’s historical domain. It was the passenger plane bigger in the worldwith two full plants, space for bars and suites, and a silence in cabin that turned the flight hours into a different experience. For Airbus, the program was not just a commercial project: it was the tangible proof that Europe could look in front of the United States in the field of civil aviation, raising a colossus capable of marking a before and after in the heavens. For a while he got it. Each A380 landing turned an airport platform into a show. Thousands of curious people came to see that mole of 73 meters long and 24 meters higha building with wings that imposed only with its shadow. It was a continental pride, an engineering triumph and a symbol of what could be achieved when several countries align resources, knowledge and ambition. However, that same pride soon began to live with an uncomfortable question: how is it possible that a plane that seemed perfect has had such a short tour? The dream of the global hub and the change of the market direction When Airbus conceived the A380, he did it under a clear premise: the future of aviation would go through increasingly saturated Megahubs. His strategy bet on a “Hub-And-Spoke” model in which passengers would come together in large airports and then distribute on connection flights. The A380 was the key piece of that puzzle: a gigantic plane capable of reducing congestion by transporting more than 500 people at once. In theory, the business was solid. Airbus estimated that more than one thousand units of very large capacity aircraft would be sold in the following two decades. But reality was very different: The market was fragmented towards more frequencies and smaller airplanesweakening at the root the argument that justified the European giant. At the same time, the technical revolution changed the rules of the game. The advance of long -range bimoretores, with increasingly wide ethops certificationsallowed to fly virtually any intercontinental route with only two engines. The Boeing 777 and, later, the 787 and he demonstrated that the same autonomy could be offered as a four -way, but with less consumption, less maintenance and greater operational flexibility. That remained attractive to an airplane that, although efficient per seat in high occupation conditions, depended on filling hundreds of places to be really profitable. In a market that preferred more daily flights with smaller airplanes, the A380 began to run out of hole. The infrastructure also played against. The A380 was classified as aircraft F code (65-80 m of wingspan)which forced many airports to invest in specific positions, double catwalks and adapted filming streets. The compatibility manuals of A380 itself They detail those demands. For Hubs like Heathrow or Dubai, those investments made sense; For the rest, they were a difficult expense to justify. Even in prepared airports, rotation times were more complex than with other airplanes, and that remained efficiency against models that could operate with less conditions. Thus, the one who should be the undisputed king of the skies ended up being an exclusive guest in a few airports on the planet. The operational economy did not help either. With occupancy rates close to 100%, the A380 offered a cost per competitive seatbut when the demand went down the model became a heavy load. In addition, its load capacity in the cellar was not as flexible as that of rivals as the 777-300er or the A350-1000, which combined better passengers and goods. In practice, the A380 was a technical prodigy but too sensitive to occupation factor already variables that escaped the control of the airlines. Despite these difficulties, the program resisted thanks to a main client: Emirates. The Gulf airline turned the A380 into its flagship and accumulated more than a hundred units. But that dependency was lethal. In 2019, Emirates drastically reduced his A380 request To bet on A350 and the A330neo. Airbus officially assumed it With a overwhelming statement: without that support there was not enough request for request to keep production alive. The decision was irreversible: on February 14, 2019, the end of the program was announced, and In 2021 the last unit was delivered. The two -storey giant had come to an end with just 251 copies manufacturedfar from the initial forecasts. The outcome left an obvious paradox. The passengers worshiped the A380, their flight experience was unsurpassed and their presence generated expectation where it flew. But the airlines, in general, did not want it in their balances. The liquidity problems in the second -hand market confirmed it: The first A380 returned by Singapore Airlines ended up scrapped for piecesa curious outcome for such a young plane. The outbreak of the pandemic in 2020 seemed to seal the fate of the A380. The majority of airlines sent it to prolonged storage, and some even They announced their final withdrawal. However, the recovery of international demand and delays in the deliveries of new wide fuselage aircraft, such as the Boeing 777xThey changed the script. Emirates invested billions in reconditioning its fleet With new cabins, Lufthansa recovered some units and Qantas, Singapore or Etihad They also reactivated part of their planes. The A380 thus found a second life, although much more limited: it is still useful in high demand routes and in airports with slots problems, but its long -term future remains marginal. The A380 is not the only one to live this transition. The Boeing 747, which for decades was the real “Jumbo Jet”, closed its production line. The difference is that 747 has found a stronger niche in the cargo market, thanks to The Morro Gate of 747-8F and its volume capacity. In passengers, a few units are barely survived in the hands of Lufthansa and Korean Air, but their time also seems told. The relay is already underway: the … Read more

If Midjourney survives Disney’s demand we could be facing the most radical transformation in Hollywood’s history

Tool or enemy? It is clear that the relationship between generative and Hollywood IAS is going to bring a lot of tail: they were one of the key points of the requests of actors and screenwriters in the strikes that paralyzed Hollywood A few months ago. But far from being circumstantial allies, producers and artificial intelligences do not team, but quite the opposite: for the first time, two Majors of cinema demand a company of AI. What requests for demand. It is notorious because it is the first time that happens, although very possibly it will not be the last. The demand accuses Midjourney of violating the copyright of the plaintiffs, Disney and Nbcuniversal, both directly and secondary. That is, Midjourney is accused of both performing without authorization acts reserved for the holder of rights and facilitating the tools for others to do so. This infraction has occurred during the training process of its AI model and by showing images generated by artificial intelligence of copyright characters. The precedent of strikes. Interestingly, now you are Majors They face the companies of AI representing the industry, but it was also the IA that caused the fracture of the industry two years ago: the scriptwriter union faced the Alliance of Film and Television Producers in May 2023 (The actors in July joined the conflict), paralyzing Hollywood For six months. The agreement that was reached significantly restricted the use of the generative AI: this is prohibited so that the producers generate a script without a screenwriter, or replicate the image of an actor without permission, but its use is allowed as tools for the technicians. What can and what is not. Producers are clear What do you want from AI companies: “Piracy is piracy, and the fact that it is done by an AI company does not make it less offender,” says Disney’s legal department. It clashes like this with an assumption of technology: that it is legal to train machines with protected material, low the rules of Fair Use that in the US defends, for example, to parodies. The result enters a very diffuse legal landand that is why the result of this demand is essential for the future of the entertainment industry: Should Chatgpt images inspired by Ghibli’s work account with Hayao Miyazaki? They are not the first. Although this action is a point and apart from the size of the plaintiffs, there have been other previous ones (one of the most sounded: the New York Times demanding Microsoft and OpenAi): This updated map details the 42 current demands against AI companies. The one that brings together more conflicts is Midjourney, which does not put limitations to its Prompts If you try to make ChatgPT make a version of an image of Darth Vader, for example, you will find a warning that the petition violates its content policies. Midjourney, on the other hand, adds Dozens of artists’ demands and creators to absorb and inspire themselves in their work. There is no back. There is much at stake with this demand, to the point that if it goes ahead it can mean the end of many companies linked to AI, which could have to return to their zero models. Hollywood would have a free way, thus, to generate new income through the licenses of its properties, or creating companies that use “legal”, giving rise to producers built entirely under these cases, such as Asteria Film, Natasha Lyonne and Bryn Mooser’s companythat only has official material and will soon release its first film. We may be, in that sense, in a “wild” era for the IAS, which has their days counted before they begin to be preceded. Trump’s idyll with the IAS. However, this purpose can run into an impediment: large technological corporations have already taken steps to ensure that they have the law on their side. Not only the great CEOs Tech supported Trump In his presidential possession: Openai, for example, sent a report to the White House In January defending that the use of material bachelor in training of AI systems should be free. Several laws around Copyright relaxed as an immediate effect, and then the avalanche of images inspired by Ghibli generated by chatgpt came. We are not seeing a clash between weak rivals, precisely: both sides have a lot to win and they will invest millions so that the demand is resolved in their favor. The future of this war. This conflict just started. Disney and Universal (depending on how long and successful this demand) they go behind other companies: they have started by Midjourney, possibly because it is the weakest. But, if for whatever, Midjourney or whoever continues to win the demand and has free way to generate images under copyright, we will be before A total revolution: The studies, as we have met them until now, could abandon their role as guardians of the franchises and the characters and anyone could generate their own material of licensed content. The new role of studies. Studies would simply be property licenses. It is a dramatic turn, but not completely unreal. After all, it is what they are already doing: exploit properties in Attraction parks and produce infinite sequelae and Continuous refritos Of the same images, the same characters and the same stories. We may be taking the first steps towards the disintegration of Hollywood as we know it. Header | Disney In Xataka | Sony seems determined to embrace AI to reduce costs in their films. Their own producers have doubts

Anthropic possibly has the best generative product. And not even that guarantees that it survives

AI is an unprecedented money devouring. Anthropic is closing a round of 3.5 billion dollars that triggers its valuation to more than 61,000 million. An astronomical figure for a company with a produce … but that has barely two million monthly active users. And projected income of “only” 1.2 billion for this year. The numbers do not add up. And that is precisely the issue. Anthropic’s problem is not the quality of your product. Claude is, in many ways, the most refined market assistant. His security approach and greater ethics, his warmer communication – as warm is his background color as opposed to Chatgpt nuclear – and his ability to hold coherent and deep conversations have made him the favorite of many demanding users. It is really good. But being the best does not assure you victory in the technology industry. Not even survival. OpenAi has 400 million active weekly users because a bestial brand has been built in AI. Google has a kind of Klapauciusan infinite money trick thanks to Your advertising empire. XAI of Elon Musk takes advantage of the X platform and its own CEO as natural showcases. Microsoft has integrated AI throughout its product ecosystem. And Anthropic? It has a great product with little distribution. It is the perfect paradox: the best assistant that almost nobody uses. The history of technology is full of higher products that ended up losing in front of mediocre but better positioned rivals. Betamax was technically superior to VHS. Apple’s Newton anticipated the iPhone for a while but a chestnut was given. Netscape Domino Internet Before being crushed by Internet Explorer. What we are witnessing is A classic standard warwhere the winner will not necessarily be the best product, but that he achieves the critical mass necessary to establish himself as the new standard of the industry. The uncomfortable reality is that we live in a world, As my said yesterday quate Javier Pastorwith Too many models of AI. Every week a new one arises. Anthropic, Openai, Google, Microsoft, Meta, XAI, Deepseek, Perplexity, Mistral, Alibaba … the list continues to grow. And when the risk capital stops flowing so generously – because at some point it will – many will not survive. The analyst Ed Zitron expresses it bluntly: Anthropic “is not a real company, I could not survive without the beneficence of risk capital.” With losses of 5,600 million last year, it is difficult to refute that statement. Zitron omits that living in losses seized to risk capital is the routine of much of the technological industry, but it is not reason. Anthropic’s strategy seems clear: to position itself as the “most human” alternative against the energy of “Robot God” of Openai. Your demos They include warm color corrections, relaxing jazz music and presenters who sound like normal people speaking normal, not as a Chief of or a Head of proclaiming achievements. It is an intelligent approach. Is it enough? Perhaps the most likely destiny for Anthropic is the acquisition. An excellent product with scarce commercial traction is attractive to giants that seek to improve their own AI offers. Apple, who has not yet shown all its cards in this game, could be a logical buyer, although its shopping history is far from these quantities: its greatest acquisition was that of Beats eleven years ago and paid for it twenty times less than what Anthropic is worth now. In this landscape oversaturated with almost indistinguishable models for the average user, the question is not who has the best technology, but who will survive when the money of the venture capital begins to scarce. And in that battle, having the best product is surely not enough. In Xataka | The new Claude 3.7 of Anthropic simplifies what other models complicate. And incidentally program and “reason” like the best Outstanding image | Anthropic

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.