The company has announced a restructuring plan in response to waning contract work, but the news comes just months after it reported record annual revenue of $64.6 million AUD.

Your plan price isnt the whole story.Verizon is announcing a new price lock policy today, and the timing is probably no coincidence. The company is extending a three-year price guarantee on certain plans, both for new and existing customers. The announcement comes a day after President Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs, and Verizon says its hoping to give customers more predictability in the current economic environment. But the fine print leaves Verizon plenty of wiggle room.The three-year guarantee covers the base charge for your rate plan, but not fees and taxes and you have to be on one of Verizons newer myPlan subscriptions to qualify. That means Verizon can still raise your monthly bill in the form of increased fees, which is what wireless carriers tend to do anyway when they want to charge more. They can also cut your monthly autopay discount in half, or persuade you to move to a pricier plan with the offer of a new phone. There are plenty of levers for companies like Verizon to pull, even with a price lock.The price lock isnt the only new offer on the table, though. Verizon is also throwing in a free phone to new and existing customers. Youll just need to trade in an old Apple, Samsung, or Google phone in any condition and again, youll need to be on a myPlan subscription to take advantage. With plenty of economic uncertainty ahead, a trade-in deal might sound appealing. Just make sure you read the fine print so you know what youre getting into.

As the US government launches investigations and threatens to pull federal funding, some elite universities have decided to take the path of least resistance. Colleges across the country have responded to the Trump administrations attacks on diversity programs and student protesters by complying with these anti-woke witch hunts. In recent weeks, university administrators at Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and other schools have let the government interfere with entire academic departments, fired professors over allegations of antisemitism lobbed by right-wing groups, and announced their refusal to intervene in immigration arrests on campus.The Trump administration has warned it will yank funding from institutions that it claims have engaged in racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and enabled antisemitism by not being hard enough on pro-Palestine protesters. These arent empty threats: in March, the administration rescinded $400 million in funding from Columbia and froze $175 million slated for the University of Pennsylvania over the schools policies on transgender athletes. This week, President Donald Trump paused several dozen grants issued to Princeton University and announced that its reviewing $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard University. Universities are largely responding to these attacks by preemptively cracking down on free speech. The Rhode Island School of Design shut down an art exhibition which it had previously approved put on by the schools chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. New York University canceled a talk on USAID cuts over concerns that the topic could be seen as anti-governmental. Yale Law School suspended, and later fired, an international law scholar after an AI-powered right-wing news site falsely accused her of being linked to a Palestinian group under US sanctions. After Trump pulled funding from Columbia, the university agreed to comply with a host of the administrations demands, including completing disciplinary proceedings for student protesters, making changes to its admissions process, banning masks on campus, and placing its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under new supervision.If universities are complying as a protective measure, its not guaranteed to work. When CNN asked if Columbia would get its funds back, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the university was on the right track but refused to confirm whether the money would be reinstated. She was more blunt in a subsequent interview: They have to abide and comply with the terms that weve set down, she told reporters.Title VI manipulationsAfter years of criticizing universities for their supposed stifling of free speech, conservatives now in power are weaponizing anti-discrimination law to quash student protests and eliminate diversity initiatives.In March, the Department of Education announced it was investigating 45 universities over their involvement with the PhD Project, a program aimed at increasing racial diversity among business school professors. The administration claimed the PhD Projects focus on hiring more professors of color violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in any programs that receive money from the federal government.The administration is also using Title VI as a cudgel against campus protests. Several universities have been probed by the Justice Department Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The task force, formed in February, has plans to visit at least 10 universities across the country to determine whether they failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination and therefore violated Title VI.The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack.Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania are among the schools that have been visited by the task force and have had their federal funding pulled as a result. While university administrators have largely complied with the administrations demands, student and faculty groups across the country have pushed back on Trumps campus incursions. Recent lawsuits have challenged Trumps funding freezes and deportation policies on First Amendment grounds, claiming that the administration is retaliating against students constitutionally protected speech. Unsurprisingly, the first of these suits involved Columbia. Last week, a coalition of labor unions sued the Trump administration, alleging that its revocation of Columbias funding violated the First Amendment. Trumps attacks on Columbia were an unprecedented effort to overpower a universitys autonomy and control the thought, association, scholarship, and expression of its faculty and students, the suit, filed in federal court in New York by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers, claims. Columbia is in the crosshairs because of the Trump administrations disagreement with the perceived political views of students and faculty at the university, the complaint reads. In addition to violating students and facultys right to free speech, the suit argues the Trump administration didnt follow Title VI procedure before pulling the universitys funds. The budget cuts have caused severe and irreparable damage not only to Columbia but also to the broader community, the suit claims, affecting crucial public health efforts including research to prevent Alzheimers disease, to ensure fetal health in pregnant women, and to cure cancer. Worse still, faculty members say, university leadership is capitulating to Trumps demands instead of fighting back.Were seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administrations unlawful assault on academic freedom, Columbia professor Reinhold Martin, who is also the president of Columbia-AAUP, said in a press release. As faculty, we dont have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack.Ideological deportationsThe AAUP is suing the Trump administration for using an ideological-deportation policy to chill speech on college campuses, according to a separate suit filed in Massachusetts. That suit, filed on March 28th in a New York federal court alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia and the Middle East Studies Association, alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) recent arrests of student protesters violate the First Amendment. ICE has arrested at least five students over their alleged involvement in pro-Palestine activism on campus. The government is using an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to initiate deportation proceedings against the students. The law, enacted at the height of the McCarthy era, lets the secretary of state declare someone deportable if their presence in the country would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has alleged that the students targeted by ICE have expressed support for Hamas, a claim for which the administration has provided next to no evidence.For example, officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claim that Rumeysa Ozturk, a graduate student at Tufts University who was arrested by ICE last week, had engaged in activities in support of Hamas. Ozturk, a Turkish citizen, wrote an opinion piece for the campus newspaper urging the university to acknowledge the Palestinian genocide and divest its endowment from companies with ties to Israel, common demands made by student activists across the country. The essay almost entirely focuses on university procedure and at no point mentions Hamas. But it was cited as an example of Ozturks Anti-Israel Activism by the website Canary Mission, a database that tracks pro-Palestinian students a sentiment it conflates with antisemitism.RelatedOther international students targeted by DHS have left the country. Ranjani Srinivasan, a Columbia student who was in the country on an F-1 visa, fled for Canada after ICE agents showed up to her dorm looking for her. In a statement published on March 22nd, Srinivasan wrote that Columbias administration didnt help her and that the university has been cooperating with ICE instead of protecting its students. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is reportedly investigating whether Columbia officials were harboring and concealing illegal aliens on campus from DHS. Momodou Taal, a Cornell PhD student who sued the Trump administration in March over two executive orders ostensibly related to national security and combating antisemitism on college campuses, also left the United States. In a statement posted on X on Monday, Taal said he hoped his lawsuit would offer reprieve for myself and other students who had been targeted for their activism. But Trump did not want me to have my day in court and sent ICE agents to my home and revoked my visa, Taal wrote.The administrations efforts to arrest student protesters has created a climate of repression and fear on college campuses, the AAUP lawsuit claims. Out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression and association, some noncitizen students and faculty have stopped attending public protests or resigned from campus groups that engage in political advocacy.Rubio recently claimed he has revoked visas daily since taking office, rescinding around 300 since January, including of students involved in pro-Palestine protests. The State Department reportedly launched a Catch and Revoke effort in March, which involves AI-assisted reviews of thousands of peoples social media accounts for pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel sentiment. Some universities have chosen to comply with Trumps efforts to deport their students. Johns Hopkins instructed faculty and staff not to intervene in ICE arrests on campus. Vigilante surveillanceThe Trump administration isnt acting alone. Its efforts to eradicate DEI and crack down on pro-Palestine protesters have been aided by a coalition of right-wing groups that share the administrations goals. Several pro-Israel groups have taken credit for ICEs arrests of student activists. The former executive director of Betar, a far-right Zionist organization, claimed he had personally spoken with aides for Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Fetterman (D-PA) about Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia student who was arrested in his university-owned housing despite having a green card. Betar claims it has compiled a list of foreign students that have criticized Israel and shared them with the Trump administration. And in late March, Canary Mission, which has tracked pro-Palestine student activists for years, added an Uncovering Foreign Nationals page to its website. The project identifies international students that Canary Mission would like the Trump administration to deport and even claims that immigration law allows for the denaturalization and deportation of naturalized American citizens for serious offenses involving national security and terrorism.A post by Jewish Onliner, a self-proclaimed AI-powered online hub for insights and exposs, was reportedly the catalyst for Yale Law Schools suspension of international law scholar Helyeh Doutaghi. The Jewish Onliner post claimed Doutaghi was a member of a terrorist group. Vigilantes have also sought to expose allegedly discriminatory practices in university admissions. A group of hackers recently leaked the names, test scores, and other identifying information of more than 3 million NYU applicants dating back to 1989. The hackers accused NYU of continuing to engage in racial affirmative action after the Supreme Court outlawed the practice in 2023.Thus far, few universities have pushed back against the Trump administrations assaults on higher education. But there is one notable example. The Rutgers University Senate passed a resolution last week calling for a Mutual Defense Compact in defense of Academic Freedom, Institutional Integrity, and the Research Enterprise. The alliance would include the universities in the Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium of 18 institutions including the University of Minnesota, Ohio State University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Weve all been trying to figure out how to solve this collective action problem, Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, a professor at the University of Minnesota, said in a Bluesky post. This seems like a very positive big step in the right direction.See More:

Amid the furore caused by Nintendos decision to charge $79.99 for Switch 2 exclusive Mario Kart World, it has emerged that some of the Switch 2 Edition games announced during the Nintendo Direct also cost $79.99.A Switch 2 Edition of a game goes beyond backwards compatibility. For example, Super Mario Party Jamborees Switch 2 Edition comes with a new suite of content called Jamboree TV that takes advantage of the Joy-Con 2 mouse controls, Switch 2 microphone, and the Switch 2 USB-C camera that will be sold separately. Along with upgraded resolution up to 1440p in TV mode and better frame rate, there are new minigames and online functions as well.Nintendo Switch 2 Game BoxesMetroid Prime 4: Beyonds Switch 2 Edition, meanwhile, supports mouse controls with Joy-Con 2, and multiple display modes such as Quality Mode, which runs at 60fps in 4K when docked, or 1080p at 60fps on handheld; and Performance Mode, which runs a 120fps in 1080p when docked, or 120fps in 720p in handheld mode. All modes support HDR.The Switch 2 Edition of Kirby and the Forgotten Lands Star-Crossed World gets new story content, while The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom gain additional support for the Zelda Notes service in the Nintendo Switch App that provides game help. Some games, like Pokemon Legends: Z-A, only feature performance and resolution bumps as part of the Switch 2 Edition label.Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games will be distinct thanks to the new red-colored physical game case.Now, via pre-order listings at U.S. retailer Walmart, we know how much fans can expect to pay for some of these Nintendo Switch 2 Edition titles.The eye-catching pricing here is that Nintendo is going for the same $80 cost as Mario Kart World, which has already sparked a vociferous debate online. For more context, be sure to check out IGNs article revealing what the experts have to say about Nintendos Switch 2 and Mario Kart World pricing.PlayPerhaps softening the blow somewhat is the upgrade Nintendo will offer to existing owners of these games on Nintendo Switch. However, Nintendo has yet to reveal how much an upgrade pack costs. We do know some upgrade packs, like the upgrade to the Switch 2 Edition of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, will be included in a Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack membership. This is the same membership that gives Switch owners access to online features and the classic library.For more, check out all the news announced during the Nintendo Switch 2 Direct.Wesley is the UK News Editor for IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at wesley_yinpoole@ign.com or confidentially at wyp100@proton.me.

Dang. $80 for Mario Kart World, huh?Today's Nintendo Direct and subsequent information dump answered many, many burning questions we've been asking about the Nintendo Switch 2, such as launch line-up and release date. Among those was the question of price, not only for the system itself but also for the games and accessories we're going to need alongside it. And it's a good thing that the rest of the Direct was so enjoyable, because Nintendo needed to do some work to justify some of these prices.Nintendo Switch 2 by itself: $449.99 USDNintendo Switch 2 with Mario Kart World bundled in: $499.99Mario Kart World by itself: $79.99Donkey Kong Bananza: $69.99Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller: $79.99Nintendo Switch 2 Camera: $49.99Joy-Con 2 Controller pair: $89.99Joy-Con 2 Charging Grip: $34.99Joy-Con 2 Strap: $12.99Joy-Con 2 Wheel pair: $19.99Nintendo Switch 2 Dock Set: $109.99Nintendo Switch 2 Carrying Case and Screen Protector: $34.99Nintendo Switch 2 All-In-One Carrying Case: $79.99Nintendo Switch 2 AC Adapter: $29.99Phew! That's a lot to dish out to play Nintendo games, even assuming most people are just going for the console, a game or two, and maybe a spare controller. Most notable in that list of prices is what's going on with the console itself. $450 isn't far off what a bunch of analysts told me the system was likely to cost when I asked them earlier this year. They predicted $400, but a few said it could likely go higher depending on various economic and technological factors.But even more interesting is Mario Kart Tour. It's $80. That makes it the most expensive we've ever seen a AAA game cost without belonging to some sort of Deluxe Edition, and it's certainly the highest Nintendo's ever gone. You can buy it in a bundle with the system to get $30 taken off the game price, but the $80 price tag has a lot of Nintendo fans concerned at the rapidly rising prices of games and what this may mean for the future. Didn't we just see games start to go from $60 to $70 a few years ago? That hurt bad enough without bumping it up even higher so soon after.So what's happening here? Why are the Nintendo Switch 2 and Mario Kart World priced the way they are? Will we see more game price hikes in the future? As usual, I asked expert analysts to explain it to me. Here's what they said.Why $450?Even though most of the analysts I spoke to today were the same folks who predicted a $400 price point when we chatted in January, no one seemed surprised at the $50 extra on the end of the announcement today. Collectively, the six I spoke to offered various reasons for the higher-than-expected price, largely agreeing on the fairly simple confluence of multiple factors: tariffs, manufacturing costs, and competition.Joost van Dreunen, NYU Stern professor and author of SuperJoost Playlist, calls the $449.99 pricing a "strategic balancing act" on Nintendo's part that reflects a mixture of increased manufacturing costs as well as ongoing uncertainty as to whether or not, and if so, what, tariffs the Trump administration in the United States is going to levy on electronics. "Nintendo appears to be building in a buffer against these potential trade barriers while ensuring they maintain their traditional positive margin on hardware."Piers Harding-Rolls of Ampere Analysis wasn't surprised by the $450 price, and said it made sense given the Switch OLED's $350 price tag. But he also shared an interesting speculation in his response related to van Dreunen's point about tariffs, relating to why Nintendo didn't announce the price in the Nintendo Direct itself today. "My view is that they probably had a range of pricing for the US market in play up until the last minute due to the uncertainty on import tariffs."PlayDr. Serkan Toto, CEO of Kantan Games, threw in another factor: Sony. "Nintendo probably factored in possible tariffs, the current inflationary climate in the world and the US$700 Sony dared to charge for the PlayStation 5 Pro last year."James McWhirter, analyst at Omdia, also mentioned the PS5 Pro as well as the Xbox Series X, both of which he pointed out sold better than their cheaper alternatives (the Xbox Series X surpassed the Series S recently in the U.S.). But he also pointed out an interesting discrepancy in how the Switch 2 is being sold in Japan versus the United States. In Japan, it's releasing a Japanese-language system for 49,980 yen ($333.22), while its multi-language system runs 69,980 yen ($466.56). Why? McWhirter has a fascinating explanation as to the existance of this region-locked system, its pricing, and the discrepancy between it and the pricing of the system in the U.S.:Japan is a key market for Nintendo - our console hardware data reveals that Japan accounts for a quarter (24%) of the Nintendo Switch installed base in 2024, compared with just 2% for Xbox Series X/S and 9% for PlayStation 5.If Switch 2 pricing in Japanese Yen was aligned with the U.S. Dollar price, it would dramatically weaken Nintendo's position in Japan, representing a doubling in the list price over the classic LCD Nintendo Switch model. Yet if Nintendo continued to rely on region-specific pricing that is significantly cheaper in USD terms, they would face an issue with grey imports to other territories.Nintendos answer is to navigate this situation with two models they are offering a substantially cheaper but price competitive 50,000 yen Nintendo Switch 2 model that only includes Japanese language support only.Meanwhile, an international language model at 70,000 yen is being positioned to protect the Japanese market from grey imports from other territories smart considering there are no other major console markets with a not insignificant number of people proficient in the Japanese language.Mario Kart World, at a PremiumOkay, that covers the console itself, so why has Nintendo hiked the price of Mario Kart World into the stratosphere at $80? When I asked the analysts I spoke to, I assumed it was related to tariff concerns. Perhaps Nintendo was worried about potential tariffs but also didn't want to raise the price of the console too high, so a more expensive flagship game was their solution to offset costs?Partially. The experts largely concluded that tariffs may have played a role, with Mat Piscatella, analyst at Circana, suggesting that the higher game pricing was a bit of future-proofing on Nintendo's part. "While pricing for a product can always be lowered over time, it's extremely difficult and painful to raise pricing on a product once it has been announced or released. This is purely my own speculation, but this pricing is most easily explained by trying to be conservative given the current chaotic market conditions."But the experts also told me there was more to it than that. McWhirter told me that this was Nintendo taking advantage of a critical moment of change in the games industry to test the waters on what the market will tolerate as far as game pricing goes. And it's using its most successful game series ever on that trial run, because Nintendo knows if any game can succeed at that price, it's Mario Kart. If it doesn't work out, it can always drop the price, either directly or indirectly through methods like Nintendo Switch Online subscriptions.Nintendo Direct: Nintendo Switch 2 Console SlideshowVan Dreunen said something similar, adding, "The timing aligns with the broader industry's gradual price increases for premium content, as we've seen with other publishers moving to $70 base games. Nintendo may be leapfrogging this intermediate step, calculating that the massive built-in audience for Mario Kart will tolerate a higher price point for what appears to be a significantly expanded experience compared to previous entries."McWhirter also pointed out that not only could this higher cost for Mario Kart World be mitigating things like tariffs or manufacturing costs, it also could be helping balance out other, invisible costs. There's those pesky manfacturing costs, for one, with McWhirter noting that the 3D NAND flash memory from supplier Macronix experts suspect Nintendo is using in Switch 2 game cards is pricey. But there's also the cost of migrating so many first-party titles to Nintendo Switch 2, and the slow build the console will see in its first three years when its blockbuster exclusives are reaching a much smaller audience than was available on the Nintendo Switch.Other experts brought up other factors. Harding-Rolls made a compelling point about Nintendo otherwise not aggressively pursuing in-game monetization, and needing to account for inflation somehow. And he added: "Nintendo has a bit of a history of pricing games higher than other platforms when coming to the market later than other platforms - in this case PS5 and Xbox Series. I remember back in the day N64 titles being more than PS1 titles for example. Some of that is related to cost of goods, but Nintendo also likes to follow its own approach and price based on its own appreciation of value."Rhys Elliott, games analyst at Alinea Analytics, said that the discrepancy in physical and digital pricing is a clear move from Nintendo to push consumers toward digital games, especially when paired with the Virtual Game Card announced last week.Nintendo is charging this price because they feel they can and that people will pay."PlayStation and Xbox have already pushed their platforms to become digital-first, driven by strategies like multi-game subscriptions, digital-only consoles, free-to-plays rise, and platform holders pushing consumers to digital versions via perks (like extra cosmetics and the ability to pre-load a game so its instantly ready to play at launch)," he said."So PlayStation and especially Xbox are very digital-first. But Nintendo is different, more 50-50. In the last nine months of 2024, 51% of Switch software sales were digital. The number was even lower in the holiday period (43.4% digital for calendar Q4), as always. For consumers, a unique value proposition of physical games is the preowned and rental markets. But Nintendos reliance on physical impacts its bottom line, hence the nudging. Nintendo does not gain revenues from physical renting and resales. After all, a copy of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe could be sold on the reseller market 100 times or rented 100 times, but Nintendo would only capture revenues from that first sale. A digital-only market means more revenue and price control for Nintendo."Finally, I asked this question of Toto, who referred to the jump from $60 games to an $80 Mario Kart World as "quite bold." His explanation was short and sweet:"Tariffs could play a role, but I think it is much simpler: Nintendo is charging this price because they feel they can and that people will pay."Who's Buying?Everyone I spoke to agreed that even though the Nintendo Switch 2 and Mario Kart World pricing is a bit of a shock, it's not going to affect sales of the console. At least... not at first."Based on what we're seeing across the market, sales to higher-income or more affluent households likely won't be impacted by this pricing," Piscatella told me. "And, of course, we have the price insensitive super enthusiasts that will do and pay whatever it takes to acquire the Switch 2 at launch. Therefore, because of the limited quantities that will be available during the launch year, I do not anticipate this pricing to hinder year one sales volumes."The true test will come in year two, as supply is likely to become more readily available, and the addressable market will be forced to widen. So, we'll have to see what happens over the next 9-12 months."McWhirter's response was similar, saying that Omdia's current forecast has the Nintendo Switch 2 being outpaced in sales by the original Switch by 6 million units by the end of 2028.Image source: Omdia"Even without considering potential tariff-related instability on hardware pricing, Omdias console forecast indicates that the list price of console hardware is no longer declining at the same rate it once did, even after adjusting for inflation (see figure, above)," he said."After four calendar years on the market, the list price of a PlayStation 5 had only fallen by 12%, compared with 21% for PlayStation 4. This could present a challenge for Nintendo if it hopes to hit a competitive $199.99 entry price point with a Lite-style revision at the same point of its cycle (2027)."Van Dreunen largely agreed as well, adding that the rising prices of other consumer electronics will likely serve to make this transition less jarring for consumers than it would be otherwise. "With the PlayStation 5 Pro at $700 and premium gaming handhelds in the $549+ range, Nintendo's pricing looks relatively reasonable by comparison," he said. Van Dreunen projected 12 - 15 million Nintendo Switch 2 units sold within the first 12 months on the market, citing backward compatibility as a significant factor that would drive adoption.With the PlayStation 5 Pro at $700... Nintendo's pricing looks relatively reasonable by comparison.Toto had a slightly different take. While he feels the hardware price will be acceptable for most consumers, games rising to $70 or $80 is a "much, much harder sell." Especially for a chunk of Nintendo's target audience."In the first year, these prices will not matter that much because there is an audience of people buying everything Nintendo offers, no matter what," he said. "What I am a bit worried about is if Nintendo will again be able to reach the mainstream audience at scale later, i.e. families that might have much tighter budgets for entertainment in today's economy. Nintendo is clearly betting on people accepting higher prices as a new normal by then."Toto's point is likely the one that will resonate the most, at least at the moment. Despite the highs of today's Nintendo Direct, one of the primary audience responses we've seen coming out of it has been concerns about how expensive it all is. Tariffs, manufacturing costs, market shifts, economics, whatever you want to call it, none of the explanations make the increasing costs of games and systems feel better on the wallet.Let's just hope no other publishers get any bright ideas about $100 games next.Rebekah Valentine is a senior reporter for IGN. You can find her posting on BlueSky @duckvalentine.bsky.social. Got a story tip? Send it to rvalentine@ign.com.

Prototypes of an OLED iPad mini display are currently being evaluated by Apple, according to a leaker with a decent track record.It seems pretty clear by this point that the next model will have an OLED screen, and it will definitely be worth waiting for if you currently have an older model Apple is gradually rolling out OLED screens across all its devices. That process began with the Apple Watch, moved onto the iPhone, and continued with the iPad Pro. Future MacBooks are also in line to get OLED screens.The iPad Air and iPad mini will be no exception, with previous reports suggesting that the new models will enter production late this year, but not go on sale until 2026. An OLED MacBook Pro is expected to launch the same year.While Apple uses advanced tandem OLED panels for the iPad Pro models, the iPad Air and iPad mini are expected to get cheaper conventional ones.Display prototypes being evaluatedIn a brief Weibo post, leaker Digital Chat Station says that Apple is currently evaluating a Samsung-made display for the iPad mini. As usual, the machine translation is awkward, but the meaning is clear.This years mainstream brands have 3 small tablets of about 8.8 inches, two LCDs, one OLED, and three flagship chips with different platforms. In addition, iPad is also evaluating small-sized OLEDs.Asked whether the display supports ProMotion, aka 120Hz refresh rates, they say they dont yet know.Worth waiting forAnyone currently looking to upgrade from an older iPad mini would be well advised to wait. The most recent refresh, in October of last year, was a relatively minor one.We noted at the time better Apple Pencil support, connectivity upgrades, support for Apple Intelligence, and a doubling of the base storage to 128GB but said it was mostly unchanged from its predecessor.The form factor is the same, bar a new (very muted) color, so its not smaller or lighter, nor does it have any design enhancements. Battery life is unchanged. The camera is the same, other than a tiny upgrade from Smart HDR 3 to 4. Its also still on the short edge, though this is perhaps more understandable on a device which is most typically used in portrait orientation. The display is completely unchanged: its the exact same 8.3-inch 2266 x 1488 pixel panel, with the same maximum brightness of 500 nits.The next model will be a much better buy. Highlighted accessoriesAdd 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.Youre reading 9to5Mac experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Dont know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has turned up the dial to 11 on his anti-Apple rhetoric, calling the iPhone maker a gangster-style business which has concluded that crime pays.He said that both Apple and Google are guilty of the same practices, including using scare tactics to make iPhone and Android users afraid to install the Epic Games Store Sweeney not an Apple fanIt would be fair to say that Sweeney isnt Apples biggest fan. Back in 2021, Epic mostly lost a lawsuit against Apple. It scored one victory, the judge ruling that developers are allowed to direct users to alternative ways to pay for in-app purchases that would avoid the App Stores 30% cut, but lost on all other issues.To cite just a handful of examples, he has previously accused Apple of buying off politicians by making political donations; described its App Store policies as illegal; and said the company acts in bad faith and lies.Apple and Google gangster companiesIn remarks reported by TechCrunch, Sweeney has gone even further while speaking at a tech conference.The sad truth is that Apple and Google are no longer good-faith, law-abiding companies, Sweeney said. Theyre run, in many ways, as gangster-style businesses that will do anything they think they can get away with. If they think that the fine is going to be cheaper than the lost revenue from an illegal practice, they always continue the illegal practice and pay the fine []Crime pays for big tech companies, he said. Obviously, we shouldnt expect that to change until enforcement becomes much, much more vigorous, he told the audience.He accused both Apple and Google of using scare tactics to dissuade smartphone owners from installing the Epic Games App Store, which would allow the company to sell apps and in-app content without the 30% cut taking by the two tech giants.In Europe, the Epic Games Store is allowed thanks to new regulations, but Apple displays a warning to users who try to install it [and] this leads to drop-off rates of 50-60%, Sweeney said.9to5Macs TakeApplying heat rather than light to a dispute rarely helps.Leaving aside the inflammatory language, however, it does appear likely that Apple will be found guilty of bad-faith compliance with the judges ruling in the case by effectively continuing to charge the same commission even for sales not made though its own store. Both judges involved in the case have strongly implied that Apple lied about how and why it reached this decision.As Ive argued previously, Apple is making exactly the same mistake Epic did when it baited Apple.What Epic Games did was dumb. It baited Apple, Apple responded, and Epic Games got hurt. FAFO. But Apple is making the exact same mistake here. Its baiting lawmakers, lawmakers will respond, and Apple will get hurt.Highlighted accessoriesImage: Epic GamesAdd 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.Youre reading 9to5Mac experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Dont know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

The rules have changed. Again. Artificial intelligence is bringing powerful new tools to businesses. But it's also giving cybercriminals smarter ways to attack. They're moving quicker, targeting more precisely, and slipping past old defenses without being noticed.And here's the harsh truth: If your security strategy hasn't evolved with AI in mind, you're already behind.But you're not aloneand you're not powerless.Cybercriminals are now using AI not just to automate attacks but to customize themtailoring phishing emails, cloning voices, manipulating data models, and probing systems for subtle weaknesses at a scale we've never seen before.These aren't future threatsthey're happening now. So the real question is: Are you ready to defend against them?In our upcoming webinar, "AI Uncovered: Re-Shaping Security Strategies for Resilience in the Era of AI," you'll hear from Diana Shtil, Senior Product Marketing Manager at Zscaler. She'll break down what's changing in cybersecurityand what you can do to protect your organization right now.What You'll Learn:How attackers are using AIand how you can think like themThe latest threat trends you might not know about yetEasy-to-follow strategies for securing AI use in your companyWhy Zero Trust is key to staying safeA practical approach to building long-term cyber resilienceCyber threats won't wait. And learning after an attack is too late.This webinar gives you clear, practical steps to prepare, adapt, and lead in the AI agewhether you're a security pro or a business decision-maker.Watch this Expert WebinarRegister now for "AI Uncovered: Re-Shaping Security Strategies for Resilience in the Era of AI" broadcasting next week.Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

AI holds the promise to revolutionize all sectors of enterprisefrom fraud detection and content personalization to customer service and security operations. Yet, despite its potential, implementation often stalls behind a wall of security, legal, and compliance hurdles.Imagine this all-too-familiar scenario: A CISO wants to deploy an AI-driven SOC to handle the overwhelming volume of security alerts and potential attacks. Before the project can begin, it must pass through layers of GRC (governance, risk, and compliance) approval, legal reviews, and funding hurdles. This gridlock delays innovation, leaving organizations without the benefits of an AI-powered SOC while cybercriminals keep advancing.Let's break down why AI adoption faces such resistance, distinguish genuine risks from bureaucratic obstacles, and explore practical collaboration strategies between vendors, C-suite, and GRC teams. We'll also provide tips from CISOs who have dealt with these issues extensively as well as a cheat sheet of questions AI vendors must answer to satisfy enterprise gatekeepers.Compliance as the primary barrier to AI adoptionSecurity and compliance concerns consistently top the list of reasons why enterprises hesitate to invest in AI. Industry leaders like Cloudera and AWS have documented this trend across sectors, revealing a pattern of innovation paralysis driven by regulatory uncertainty.When you dig deeper into why AI compliance creates such roadblocks, three interconnected challenges emerge. First, regulatory uncertainty keeps shifting the goalposts for your compliance teams. Consider how your European operations might have just adapted to GDPR requirements, only to face entirely new AI Act provisions with different risk categories and compliance benchmarks. If your organization is international, this puzzle of regional AI legislation and policies only becomes more complex. In addition, framework inconsistencies compound these difficulties. Your team might spend weeks preparing extensive documentation on data provenance, model architecture, and testing parameters for one jurisdiction, only to discover that this documentation is not portable across regions or is not up-to-date anymore. Lastly, the expertise gap may be the biggest hurdle. When a CISO asks who understands both regulatory frameworks and technical implementation, typically the silence is telling. Without professionals who bridge both worlds, translating compliance requirements into practical controls becomes a costly guessing game.These challenges affect your entire organization: developers face extended approval cycles, security teams struggle with AI-specific vulnerabilities like prompt injection, and GRC teams who have the difficult task of safeguarding their organization take increasingly conservative positions without established benchmarks. Meanwhile, cybercriminals face no such constraints, rapidly adopting AI to enhance attacks while your defensive capabilities remain locked behind compliance reviews.AI Governance challenges: Separating myth from realityWith so much uncertainty surrounding AI regulations, how do you distinguish real risks from unnecessary fears? Let's cut through the noise and examine what you should be worrying aboutand what you can let be. Here are some examples:FALSE: "AI governance requires a whole new framework."Organizations often create entirely new security frameworks for AI systems, unnecessarily duplicating controls. In most cases, existing security controls apply to AI systemswith only incremental adjustments needed for data protection and AI-specific concerns.TRUE: "AI-related compliance needs frequent updates." As the AI ecosystem and underlying regulations keep shifting, so does AI governance. While compliance is dynamic, organizations can still handle updates without overhauling their entire strategy.FALSE: "We need absolute regulatory certainty before using AI."Waiting for complete regulatory clarity delays innovation. Iterative development is key, as AI policy will continue evolving, and waiting means falling behind.TRUE: "AI systems need continuous monitoring and security testing."Traditional security tests don't capture AI-specific risks like adversarial examples and prompt injection. Ongoing evaluationincluding red teamingis critical to identify bias and reliability issues.FALSE: "We need a 100-point checklist before approving an AI vendor." Demanding a 100-point checklist for vendor approval creates bottlenecks. Standardized evaluation frameworks like NIST's AI Risk Management Framework can streamline assessments.TRUE: "Liability in high-risk AI applications is a big risk."Determining accountability when AI errors occur is complex, as errors can stem from training data, model design, or deployment practices. When it's unclear who is responsibleyour vendor, your organization, or the end-usercareful risk management is necessary.Effective AI governance should prioritize technical controls that address genuine risksnot create unnecessary roadblocks that keep you stuck while others move forward.The way forward: Driving AI innovation with GovernanceOrganizations that adopt AI governance early gain significant competitive advantages in efficiency, risk management, and customer experience over those that treat compliance as a separate, final step. Take JPMorgan Chase's AI Center of Excellence (CoE) as an example. By leveraging risk-based assessments and standardized frameworks through a centralized AI governance approach, they've streamlined the AI adoption process with expedited approvals and minimal compliance review times.Meanwhile, for organizations that delay implementing effective AI governance, the cost of inaction grows daily:Increased security risks: Without AI-powered security solutions, your organization becomes increasingly vulnerable to sophisticated, AI-driven cyber attacks that traditional tools cannot detect or mitigate effectively.Lost opportunities: Failing to innovate with AI results in lost opportunities for cost savings, process optimization, and market leadership as competitors leverage AI for competitive advantage.Regulatory debt: Future tightening of regulations will increase compliance burdens, forcing rushed implementations under less favorable conditions and potentially higher costs.Inefficient late adoption: Retroactive compliance often comes with less favorable terms, requiring substantial rework of systems already in production.Balancing governance with innovation is critical: as competitors standardize AI-powered solutions, you can ensure your market share through more secure, efficient operations and enhanced customer experiences powered by AI and future-proofed through AI governance.How can vendors, executives and GRC teams work together to unlock AI adoption?AI adoption works best when your security, compliance, and technical teams collaborate from day one. Based on conversations we've had with CISOs, we'll break down the top three key governance challenges and offer practical solutions.Who should be responsible for AI Governance in your organization?Answer: Create shared accountability through cross-functional teams: CIOs, CISOs, and GRC can work together within an AI Center of Excellence (CoE).As one CISO candidly told us: "GRC teams get nervous when they hear 'AI' and use boilerplate question lists that slow everything down. They're just following their checklist without any nuance, creating a real bottleneck."What organizations can do in practice:Form an AI governance committee with people from security, legal, and business.Create shared metrics and language that everyone understands to track AI risk and value.Set up joint security and compliance reviews so teams align from day one.How can vendors make data processing more transparent?Answer: Build privacy and security into your design from the ground up so that common GRC requirements are already addressed from day 1.Another CISO was crystal clear about their concerns: "Vendors need to explain how they'll protect my data and whether it will be used by their LLM models. Is it opt-in or opt-out? And if there's an accidentif sensitive data is accidentally included in the traininghow will they notify me?"What organizations acquiring AI solutions can do in practice:Use your existing data governance policies instead of creating brand-new structures (see next question).Build and maintain a simple registry of your AI assets and use cases.Make sure your data handling procedures are transparent and well-documented.Develop clear incident response plans for AI-related breaches or misuse.Are existing exemptions to privacy laws also applicable to AI tools?Answer: Consult with your legal counsel or privacy officer.That said, an experienced CISO in the financial industry explained, "There is a carve out within the law for processing private data when it's being done for the benefit of the customer or out of contractual necessity. As I have a legitimate business interest in servicing and protecting our clients, I may use their private data for that express purpose and I already do so with other tools such as Splunk." He added, "This is why it's so frustrating that additional roadblocks are thrown up for AI tools. Our data privacy policy should be the same across the board."How can you ensure compliance without killing innovation?Answer: Implement structured but agile governance with periodic risk assessments.One CISO offered this practical suggestion: "AI vendors can help by proactively providing answers to common questions and explanations for why certain concerns aren't valid. This lets buyers provide answers to their compliance team quickly without long back-and-forths with vendors."What AI vendors can do in practice:Focus on the "common ground" requirements that appear in most AI policies.Regularly review your compliance procedures to cut out redundant or outdated steps.Start small with pilot projects that prove both security compliance and business value.7 questions AI vendors need to answer to get past enterprise GRC teamsAt Radiant Security, we understand that evaluating AI vendors can be complex. Over numerous conversations with CISOs, we've gathered a core set of questions that have proven invaluable in clarifying vendor practices and ensuring robust AI governance across enterprises.1. How do you ensure our data won't be used to train your AI models?"By default, your data is never used for training our models. We maintain strict data segregation with technical controls that prevent accidental inclusion. If any incident occurs, our data lineage tracking will trigger immediate notification to your security team within 24 hours, followed by a detailed incident report."2. What specific security measures protect data processed by your AI system?"Our AI platform uses end-to-end encryption both in transit and at rest. We implement strict access controls and regular security testing, including red team exercises; we also maintain SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and FedRAMP certifications. All customer data is logically isolated with strong tenant separation."3. How do you prevent and detect AI hallucinations or false positives?"We implement multiple safeguards: retrieval augmented generation (RAG) with authoritative knowledge bases, confidence scoring for all outputs, human verification workflows for high-risk decisions, and continuous monitoring that flags anomalous outputs for review. We also conduct regular red team exercises to test the system under adversarial conditions."4. Can you demonstrate compliance with regulations relevant to our industry?"Our solution is designed to support compliance with GDPR, CCPA, NYDFS, and SEC requirements. We maintain a compliance matrix mapping our controls to specific regulatory requirements and undergo regular third-party assessments. Our legal team tracks regulatory developments and provides quarterly updates on compliance enhancements."5. What happens if there's an AI-related security breach?"We have a dedicated AI incident response team with 24/7 coverage. Our process includes immediate containment, root cause analysis, customer notification within contractually agreed timeframes (typically 24-48 hours), and remediation. We also conduct tabletop exercises quarterly to test our response capabilities."6. How do you ensure fairness and prevent bias in your AI systems?"We implement a comprehensive bias prevention framework that includes diverse training data, explicit fairness metrics, regular bias audits by third parties, and fairness-aware algorithm design. Our documentation includes detailed model cards that highlight limitations and potential risks."7. Will your solution play nicely with our existing security tools?"Our platform offers native integrations with major SIEM platforms, identity providers, and security tools through standard APIs and pre-built connectors. We provide comprehensive integration documentation and dedicated implementation support to ensure seamless deployment."Bridging the gap: AI innovation meets GovernanceAI adoption isn't stalled by technical limitations anymoreit's delayed by compliance and legal uncertainties. But AI innovation and governance aren't enemies. They can actually strengthen each other when you approach them right.Organizations that build practical, risk-informed AI governance aren't just checking compliance boxes but securing a real competitive edge by deploying AI solutions faster, more securely, and with greater business impact. For your security operations, AI may be the single most important differentiator in future-proofing your security posture. While cybercriminals are already using AI to enhance their attacks' sophistication and speed, can you afford to fall behind? Making this work requires real collaboration: Vendors must address compliance concerns proactively, C-suite executives should champion responsible innovation, and GRC teams need to transition from gatekeepers to enablers. This partnership unlocks AI's transformative potential while maintaining the trust and security that customers demand.About Radiant SecurityRadiant Security provides an AI-powered SOC platform designed for SMB and enterprise security teams looking to fully handle 100% of the alerts they receive from multiple tools and sensors. Ingesting, understanding, and triaging alerts from any security vendor or data source, Radiant ensures no real threats are missed, cuts response times from days to minutes, and enables analysts to focus on true positive incidents and proactive security. Unlike other AI solutions which are constrained to predefined security use cases, Radiant dynamically addresses all security alerts, eliminating analyst burnout and the inefficiency of switching between multiple tools. Additionally, Radiant delivers affordable, high-performance log management directly from customers' existing storage, dramatically reducing costs and eliminating vendor lock-in associated with traditional SIEM solutions.Learn more about the leading AI SOC platform.About Author: Shahar Ben Hador spent nearly a decade at Imperva, becoming their first CISO. He went on to be CIO and then VP Product at Exabeam. Seeing how security teams were drowning in alerts while real threats slipped through, drove him to build Radiant Security as co-founder and CEO.Found this article interesting? This article is a contributed piece from one of our valued partners. Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

Max Vetter, VP of Cyber, Immersive April 3, 20254 Min ReadZdenek Sasek via Alamy StockJust a few months into the year, organizations have already been rocked by massive breaches, high-stakes settlements, and disruptive LLMs. The pace of these events isnt just alarming -- its a warning sign. If these early shockwaves are any indication, cyber professionals are in for a year of unprecedented challenges and shifts in the threat landscape.Cyberattacks arent just likely anymore -- theyre practically inevitable. With the rise of GenAI, ever-expanding threats, and hostile nation-state actors, the game has changed. Yet, most organizations continue to play defense the same way: relying on outdated training, investing in cyber insurance policies, and adopting the latest tech tools, believing the tick boxes required by compliance actually help them be secure.But are they actually ready? Organizations must go beyond simply claiming readiness to prove it.This will be imperative for overall business operations and their bottom lines, as the global average cost of a breach was $4.88 million, with the vast majority (68%) of breaches involving the human element. Organizations must start from within to ensure theyre doing all they can to protect themselves from threat actors.Security leaders can strengthen their readiness by focusing on these key actions:Related:1. Out with the old, in with the newIts past time to ditch painful traditional training (like anti-phishing videos) and other outdated methods that dont measure what people will do in the event of a threat, which can lead to a false sense of security. It's time to shift focus to the continuous development of your team's skills through hands-on crisis exercising. And this doesnt mean one-and-done training will cut it. Regularly pressure test your people to ensure they can adapt and communicate effectively. Regular cyber drills will ensure your people are ready.2. Focus on your people over tech stacksJust recently, MGM agreed to pay $45 million following breaches in 2019 and 2023. They were impacted by malicious actors taking advantage of the human element of their security posture. This example underscores the bottom-line need to uplevel the knowledge, skills, and judgment of their entire workforce to ensure no one is taken advantage of as a weak or missing link and instead empower everyone to be an asset for the security and bottom line of the organization.That said, it would be naive to overlook technologys role as the bridge between malicious actors and their victims. To stay ahead, organizations should consider using newer tools, like GenAI, to strengthen their defenses. Integrating these tools into hands-on exercises allows your team to concentrate on remediation and enhancing defenses. Humans should also always be kept in the loop because its critical to remember GenAI can be a double-edged sword: while DevSecOps teams can use it to automate and accelerate vulnerability detection, bad actors will exploit these same tools to generate malicious code and enhance phishing or fraud tactics, increasing overall risk.Related:3. Involve your execs, not just techsInvolving all executives in a company's cybersecurity strategy is crucial for creating a holistic and effective approach to security. Cyber threats are not limited to IT; they can affect every aspect of a business, from financial systems and customer data to supply chain operations. Keeping these conversations siloed is a missed opportunity. Instead, leaders like the CEO, CFO, and legal team should be involved to ensure security strategies align with the companys broader business objectives. The industry agrees, as 96% of cyber leaders believe communicating cyber-readiness to senior leadership and boards will be crucial this year.This cross-departmental involvement helps create a unified approach where security is seen as a technical challenge but also as a core part of the company's overall strategy, influencing decision-making at all levels. A modern, comprehensive cybersecurity strategy requires leadership engagement across departments to ensure resilience, compliance, and long-term business success.Related:4. Treat cyber risk like any other business riskApproaching cyber risk like any other business risk is essential for a companys long-term stability and success. Like how businesses monitor financial performance, competitive threats, and legal liabilities, cyber risk should be tracked with the same level of attention. An organization must continually assess its cybersecurity posture, identify vulnerabilities and evaluate potential threats.This means not only implementing technical defenses, but also establishing policies, processes, and training programs that foster a culture of security awareness. By treating cyber risk as an ongoing priority, companies can address weaknesses before they become breaches, ensuring their cybersecurity efforts are integrated into the broader risk management framework.As we navigate the tumultuous technological landscape, its clear that a reactive approach is no longer enough. Organizations must evolve beyond checking off boxes for compliance or relying on outdated solutions that offer limited protection. The best way to stay ahead of malicious actors is to encourage a culture of proactive, holistic cybersecurity -- where technology, human capabilities, and leadership all play integral roles.Cybersecurity should not be an afterthought or siloed responsibility. Instead, it should be embedded in an organization's strategy at every level. By focusing on the right people, technology, and approach to risk management, businesses can better position themselves to be ready for whats to come.About the AuthorMax VetterVP of Cyber, Immersive Max Vetter leads a team of cyber experts at Immersive Labs, helping customers stay ahead of threats and be resilient against cyber-attacks. Max spent seven years with Londons Metropolitan Police Service as a police officer, intelligence analyst, and covert internet investigator, including working in the money laundering unit in Scotland Yard. He also worked as Assistant Director of the ICC Commercial Crime Services investigating commercial crime, fraud, and serious organized crime groups. Before joining Immersive Labs Max spent three years training the private sector and government agencies including the UKs GCHQ and its cyber summer school in ethical hacking and open-source intelligence and was the subject matter expert in darknets and cryptocurrencies.See more from Max VetterWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like