FeatureWill Europe be the first region to enact regulation for green software? There is currently no regulation in the world specific to the environmental impact of software and consumers and investors have yet to begin to reward or punish companies based on green technologyByKarl Flinders,Chief reporter and senior editor EMEAPublished: 07 Jan 2025 So far, there is no regulation anywhere in the world specific to the environmental impact of software a fact that runs alongside the reality that neither consumers nor investors are towards or away from companies based on the green credentials of their software.Many experts expect Europe to be thefirstregionto enactregulationthatenforcesgreen software practices. One of them isSantiago Fontanarrosa, vice-president of technology atGlobant, a digital services company and author of the bookGreen software engineering: exploring green technology for sustainable IT solutions.According toFontanarrosa,Europe is well-positioned to lead in green software regulationthanks in partto its strong sustainability initiatives and advancements in software engineering.Europeiscommitment to sustainability,as demonstrated byambitious initiatives like theEuropean Green Deal.Moreover,France leads in green software research,andGermanys Blue Angels offers the first global eco-friendly software certification.According toFontanarrosa, green software is not only about applying certain development practices, its also abouthow todeployand usethe resulting applications. As for what developers can do, many of the green software techniques can be taken from the practices used bypeople whowroteprograms in the 1970s, when CPUs were much less powerful, andmemory and storagewere much more limited. As processors became faster andmemory andstorage grew, software engineers have become more complacent.Today, my iPhone has more computingpower than the machine I used when I started working inthe 1990s,saysFontanarrosa.I have seen a big change since I began my career. Developers have become less concerned about how they use resources, like CPU and memory. And they no longer apply optimisation techniques. For example, when you have an algorithm that does a loop to go through a very long list, they dont look for ways of making that part of their code more efficient.When it comes to green software, efficiency pertains to how much energy a program consumes to perform its functions. This involves optimising not only the use of CPU time, memory access and I/O, but also the transfer of data over networks. If coders simply thought more about the physical operations going on underneath their code, they would develop greener software.For example, as compared to a program that periodically checks for updates, an event-based architecture that reacts only when new data becomes available is more efficient because it reduces the number of network requests. Biggerdesign decisions are also important an architect can take into account the fact that energy is cleaner at certain times of the day, and decide to have certain intensive tasks performed during those optimal periods.As for deploying software, one of the underlying principles is to minimise the amount of data traveling around networks, while another is to be selective of datacentres.The cloud nowadays is a commodity everyone uses,saysFontanarrosa.But the cloud is actually a big datacentre somewhere that consumes a lot of energy. If I can choose a data provider cloud that uses more green energy, that will have a big impact on my carbon footprint.Fontanarrosaalso advises developers and operators to reduce the number of instances theyre using on the cloud.Nowadays, you have a credit card, you do two clicks, and you have a whole new infrastructure up there,he says.You dont even worry about it. Thats the kind of mentality that we need to start changing.One example that illustrates how much of an impact software can have is given byDutch software guruDanny van Kootenin a2020 blog postthat influenced many other developers to makesimilarchanges.Van Kooten estimates that he reduced emissions by 59,000 kgofCOper month by making a very small change to his WordPress plugins that run on more than two million websites. That savings is the amount of COused to fly from Amsterdam to New York five times. He says that assuming the average website receives about 10,000 visitors a month and uses cache to serve returning users, a monthly savings of 10,000 kWh can be achieved for every 1 kilobyte a programmer shaves off of their JavaScript.Another exampleisdescribed inFontanarrosasbook, where hecompares two implementations of the Fibonacci sequence, using theCodeCarbontool to measure energy consumption. The first implementation used a recursive implementation and the second used an iterative approach with a for-loop. The iterative implementation used 99.34% less energy andreducedCOemissionsby 99.35%.This striking difference demonstrates how thoughtful implementation choices in algorithm design can drastically reduce energy consumption and emissions, showcasing the potential for greener and more efficient software development,saysFontanarrosa.Fontanarrosasays that even if governments are not pushing for green software, businesses and consumers can make it a reality. One encouraging sign is that a lot of companies have joined the Green Software Foundation sinceitsinception in May 2021, includingFontanarrosasorganisation,Globant.The mission of theGreen Software Foundation which was founded by Accenture, GitHub, Microsoft andThoughtWorks is tobuild a trusted ecosystem of people, standards, tooling and best practices for green software.According to Green Software Foundation, the ICT sector will account for 14% of the worlds carbon footprint by 2040, most of which will be from smartphones and datacentres.The website says that software developers contribute to global emissions in many ways. One is by producing new versions of their products, which often requires better hardware to run, rendering the existing computers obsolete.One encouraging sign of progress is that the Green Software FoundationsSoftware Carbon Intensity (SCI)specification recently achieved ISO standard status. However, this is nothing like government-backed regulation as SCI is still a voluntary, industry-driven standard.I encourage everyone to learn about green software,saysFontanarrosa.Go to the Green Software Foundation webpage,or any other related resource, to start thinking about it and trying to introduce minor changes in your digital products. Minor changes sum up to a big impact.Read more about IT sustainabilityAs the global transition towards developing low-carbon economies continues apace, Gartner shares its take on the actions enterprises must take now to navigate an increasingly volatile energy landscape.The hype around AI is increasingly being matched with discussionsabout how the technologys adoption will affect the environment, so what can IT leaders do to ensure they keep the companies they work for on the forefront of innovation, without compromising the environment - or their firms own corporate sustainability agenda?The past 12 months have seencompaniesrow back on their sustainability commitments, in response to economic pressures, but could doing so harm their bottom line in the long run?In The Current Issue:What do the home secretarys policing reforms mean for the future of the Police Digital Service?What are the security risks of bring your own AI?Download Current Issue

Yana Lobenko/Getty ImagesEnterprise use of AI agents is on the rise, with 25% of enterprises using generative AI forecast to deploy AI agents in 2025, growing to 50% by 2027, according to Deloitte.The rise of agents means we need to adopt a new mindset. Being prepared for reinvention is crucial in an AI-first future led by agents. Business leaders must operate like chefs, not cooks in a world of hyper-automation, connections, and real-time knowledge sharing.Also:15 ways AI saved me time at work in 2024 - and how I plan to use it in 2025A cook uses recipes to create -- learning by analogy. A chef does not need a recipe. A chef learns the taste of each ingredient and can combine the right ingredients to prepare a delicious plate -- learning by first principles. A good chef also understands relationships between ingredients, dishes, the kitchen, staff, customers, and more.Companies will invest heavily in AI agents as the world of work changes forever. According to tech analyst Gartner, agentic AI is the most importantstrategic technology for 2025and beyond.Agentic AI systems autonomously plan and take actions to meet user-defined goals. The technology offers a virtual workforce that can offload and augment human work. Gartner predicts that, by 2028, at least 15% of day-to-day work decisions will be taken autonomously through agentic AI, up from 0% in 2024.So, how can businesses manage relationships between a human and AI digital workforce, collaborating to deliver value at the speed of need to all stakeholders? In a machine-led economy, how do we define healthy relationships between people and machines? The level of transformation ahead of us, including innovation velocity (speed and direction), will force business leaders to challenge legacy assumptions and orthodoxies.The business world is full of orthodoxies, beliefs that no one questions because they are thought to be "just the way things are". One such orthodoxy is the phrase: "Our people are the difference". A simple Google search can attest to its popularity.Some companies use this orthodoxy as their official or unofficial tagline, a tribute to their employees that they hope sends the right message internally and externally. They hope their employees feel special and customers take this orthodoxy as proof of their human goodness.Also:Why ethics is becoming AI's biggest challengeOther firms use this orthodoxy as part of their explanation of what makes their company different. It's part of their corporate story. It sounds nice, caring, and positive. The only problem is that this orthodoxy is not true.The most obvious reason is that most employees of nearly all companies have worked somewhere else before joining their current firm. And most have worked at one or more competitors. We know this fact because perhaps the most common phrase in recruiting history is the one in job postings that says, "Relevant industry experience mandatory."Human resource managers appear to think prior experience in their industry is an essential quality for a prospective employee, even a deal breaker. It's another orthodoxy that should, by the way, be closely scrutinized for its value. The outcome is that everyone moves within their industry. So, it would be better to assert that "our people are reassuringly familiar".However, there is another, less obvious, way this orthodoxy isn't true. This way might even be a more significant blocker to innovative thinking. It's the fact that what makes the difference is not the individual employee but the conditions set for them by the company culture and the relationships they are encouraged and allowed to make with each other, their customers, their bosses, and so on.The truth is that individuals can thrive in one environment and struggle in another. We see this most clearly in professional sports teams where trades can result in surprising performance changes.Some players flourish in new surroundings and become highly valued team members after failing to differentiate themselves at their former club, while others fail to live up to expectations. In either case, the player is not the difference, though they can bloom or wilt. The determining factor is the conditions the players are placed in and the relationships they make, or do not make, that enable them to do so.Another way to put this is that individual employees are not fixed assets. They do not behave the same way in all conditions. In most cases, employees are adaptable and can absorb and respond to change. The environment, conditions, and potential for relationships cause this capacity to express itself.So, on the one hand, one company's employees are the same as any other company's employees in the same industry. They move from company to company, read the same magazines, attend similar conventions, and learn the same strategies and processes.But at the same time, one employee can perform in one way at one company and very differently at another. They can be stars at one and struggle to shine at another. They can love working at one company and hate the same job at a different firm.Also:Your AI transformation depends on these 5 business tacticsBusiness leadership author Simon Sinek provides a clear example in one of his favorite true stories about a barista named Noah. He describes being at the Four Seasons Hotel in Las Vegas, ordering a coffee from Noah, and asking whether he enjoyed his job. Noah responded immediately: "I love it!" When asked why, he said it was because managers would check up on him frequently and ask him what they could do to help him.Noah then said that he does the same job at a different hotel and the managers always check up on him but only to see what he's doing wrong. As a direct consequence his attitude to work there is entirely transactional. He puts in the hours, keeps his head down, and takes the paycheck.Sinek is right to make the point that the experience Noah's customers get will be wildly different depending on which hotel he's serving them at. The same barista with the same job but two hotels with entirely different management philosophies and the employee's and his customers' experience of his service are night and day.Sinek draws from this story the lesson that different leadership approaches can create different work conditions for their employees and elicit different experiences and performances. The lesson is that performance, the "difference" that companies seek from their people, is not an attribute that is owned or embodied solely by the individual employees themselves.Also:4 ways to turn generative AI experiments into real business valueInstead, performance is a shared attribute that emerges from the coming together of the employee and the conditions, the culture, and the other people with whom they interact, including but not limited to their managers. Performance is emergent and it is relational. As companies deploy agent AIs, creating a boundless digital workforce, where humans and agents work together to deliver customer success, business leaders must focus on designing healthy and sustainable relationships.Relational intelligence, a practice we believe encompasses a framework for how people and machines can co-create real value for each other and all stakeholders, will determine who wins in a machine-led economy.Companies that leave it up to their people to be the difference or to make the difference because, well, that's what the orthodoxy tells us, are at risk of missing a bigger truth -- the relationships between people are more important to business success than the people themselves. Our relationships make the difference.This article was co-authored byHenry King, business innovation and transformation strategy leader and co-author ofBoundless: A New Mindset for Unlimited Business Success. Editorial standards

Despite these hurdles, the potential to revolutionize industries and create groundbreaking opportunities is immense.

nuestark's founders, Johannes Tiefenthaler and Valentin Gutknecht. Since 2019, Tiefenthaler and ... [+] Gutknecht have built neustark into a credible force for CDR in Europe. They have plans to expand the business to the U.S.nuestarkCivilization lies between a rock and a hard place. Our high standard of living comes at the cost of processes that emit carbon dioxide, and those emissions are rapidly pushing our planet out of the environmental envelope that allows us to live so comfortably. We desperately need a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy.The takeaway from my recent series on carbon capture and storage was that while the challenges of capturing emissions were great, the lack of transportation and storage infrastructure was the real problem.One innovative Swiss company, neustark, has devised a clever solution for storing carbon dioxide captured from waste treatment facilities within one of the most widely used substances on earthconcrete. neustark aims to create a local, circular economy that transforms demolished concrete into a carbon-negative building material.This may sound similar to Eco Material Technologies or other low-carbon cement producers which Ive covered in this column. Eco Material and its competitors seek to reduce the carbon footprint of producing cementthe binder that holds concrete together. neustark, in contrast, capitalizes on concretes ability to absorb CO2 throughout its useful life, especially when it is crushed into smaller pieces.neustark is a relatively new entrant in the CDR industryneustark was founded in 2019 by Johannes Tiefenthaler and Valentin Gutknecht, two innovators determined to find a practical and scalable solution to the challenges of carbon sequestration. Tiefenthaler, a scientist with a doctorate from the world-famous university ETH Zurich, is an expert in mineralizationstoring carbon dioxide in stonethe core technology behind neustarks innovation.MORE FOR YOUGutknecht, who previously worked in business development at Climeworksa leader in direct air capture technologybrought his experience in marketing and scaling carbon dioxide removal businesses. Tiefenthaler and Gutknecht collaborated to create a network of local firms that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, transform concrete into a tool for climate action, and help businesses reduce their carbon footprints.Like many successful start-ups, neustark has identified a very specific problem to solveCO2 emissions from waste management facilities, which capture methane generated in the decomposition of organic matter and sell it as renewable natural gas. Decomposition also generates carbon dioxide, which most facilities, lacking an economic solution for storing and transporting itsimply release into the atmosphere. neustark provides a pathway for that CO2 to be stored rather than released.The heart of neustarks process is an innovative reactor installed directly at concrete recycling plants. These facilities crush old concrete from demolished buildings to create aggregate, the pebbles and sand that cement binds together to form concrete. The neustark reactor infuses the crushed concrete with captured carbon dioxide from biofuel manufacturers and waste processing plants . The CO reacts in a mineralization process with calcium ions in the concrete to form calcium carbonate (CaCO)synthetic limestone. A single neustark reactor can draw down as much carbon dioxide in an hour as 50 pine trees can over an entire year.Mineralization permanently traps CO2, ensuring it won't return to the atmosphere. Even better, the resulting limestone aggregate is ready for use in construction, creating a closed-loop system for both concrete and carbon.The carbon dioxide from one waste management facility is sufficient to supply ten concrete recyclers, and neustark focuses on building local networks to minimize the carbon footprint of the attendant CO2 liquefaction and tanker truck operation. The company presently has four emission source partners, with ten more in various stages of development. It has 40 locations in development on the sequestration side, and recently announced that it was expanding from Continental Europe with the inking of a deal with a new storage partner in the UK.neustark's CDR technology bolts on easily to existing concrete recycling operations. Concrete ... [+] recyclers pay neustark to install the CDR reactor and then shares in revenues from the sales of carbon credits to the voluntary market. neustark estimates its recycler partners have a payback period of only a few years before they start generating 100% profit margins from credit sales.neustarkBecause neustark sources its carbon dioxide from organic waste facilities, its solution is carbon negativethe organic waste contains atmospheric carbon dioxide that will never return to the atmosphere. This approach reminds me of Brilliant Planet, the company profiled in this column in the summer of 2024 that uses algae to pull down atmospheric CO2 and then buries the algae underground. neustark chemically buries the atmospheric carbon dioxide in roads, sidewalks, and buildings rather than in a borehole, but the idea is the same.neustark generates revenues through equipment sales to the concrete recyclers to build the bolt-on mineralization reactors, and from the sale of high-quality carbon credits on the voluntary carbon markets. neustark handles the reporting and verification of these credits, sharing credit revenues with concrete recyclers. The company estimates its partners recoup the original equipment outlay over two to three years, after which the partners credit revenues fall directly to the bottom line.In repurposing waste concrete and creating an economically viable pathway for CDR, neustark flips the narrative of concretes environmental reputation. As the demand for carbon credits and eco-friendly building solutions grows, neustarks combination of science, engineering, and business innovation positions them as a key player in the fight against climate change. Intelligent investors take note.

The definitive ranking of the 100 best tech investors in the world, the Forbes Midas List is now seeking submissions for its 24th annual edition through January 28.Across boom-and-bust cycles for the venture capital industry, the Forbes Midas List has remained a constant, providing the definitive and data-driven ranking of the worlds top venture investors since its creation more than two decades ago.Now, in another time of transition for VC from partners playing musical chairs with firms to others joining the White House the Midas List returns for its 24th year. With booming artificial intelligence valuations and the promise of more IPOs following ServiceTitans December debut, Forbes expects to see new faces crack into this exclusive community.Submissions for the 2025 Midas List are now open through January 28.Since 2011, Forbes has produced the Midas List in partnership with a data partner, TrueBridge Capital Partners. Forbes and TrueBridge evaluate submissio ns for hundreds of investors across dozens of the industrys leading firms to rank investors based on their portfolios and results, not buzz or internet clout. Eligible investors must deploy capital out of formally closed funds with external limited partners; personal and corporate investments, while valuable to the ecosystem, are not considered for Midas rankings.The Midas List ranks investors across stages, with its model rewarding bigger and bolder bets. The list evaluates investors on a partner-by-partner basis, with up to two investors able to claim partial credit for a deal. Liquid exits that return real dollars back to limited partners are rewarded above unrealized gains. List-makers will typically have 10 or more eligible deals in their portfolio, or one or two career-defining outsized wins.Eligible portfolio companies must have either gone public or been acquired at a valuation of $200 million or more over the past five years; or, if still private, at least doubled their private valuation since the submitting investors initial investment to reach a valuation of $400 million or more.The 2024 edition of the Midas List featured 6 newcomers and 8 investors who reappeared on the rankings after previously dropping off, with Sequoias Alfred Lin in the top slot. The list tied a Midas record with 13 women investors.Investors who submitted for the Midas List Europe, our December ranking for venture capitalists based in Europe, Israel and the Middle East, are encouraged to resubmit as qualifying cutoffs for each list can vary. Eligible investors who submit for the main list will be automatically entered into candidacy for our additional Midas Seed List, which recognizes investors focused on the earliest stages. THE MIDAS LIST 2022Read MoreSubmissions are important for Forbes and TrueBridge to review the most up to date and accurate information but are not required for Midas consideration; in the rare instance that an investor does not wish to participate, the Midas list will still consider their achievements as fairly as possible through historical and third-party data. Candidates who have retired, or have changed employment status for conduct-related reasons, will be removed from eligibility.Portfolio performance and submissions are kept confidential and not published or shared. Submission to the list is, and has always been, entirely free.More historical information on the Midas List and frequently asked questions can be found on the Midas submission site. You can read last years package, including interviews with notable list makers and breakdowns of the list, here.

WTF?! In another illustration of how much bigger the video game market has become compared to the movie industry, the development costs of three Call of Duty games have been discovered. The least expensive was $450 million, while the costliest was an astounding $700 million and that doesn't include marketing costs. The development costs of Black Ops 3, Modern Warfare (2019), and Black Ops Cold War were part of a court filing seen by Game File.Starting with 2015's Black Ops 3, the filing states that Treyarch developed the game over three years. The FPS racked up over $450 million in development costs over its lifecycle and has sold 43 million copies.Next is 2019's Modern Warfare. Infinity Ward's development costs for this one reached over $640 million and it sold 41 million copies.The last of the three is 2020's Black Ops Cold War. Across the several years it took to make the game, Infinity Ward and Treyarch spent over $700 million. It was also the worst-selling of the trio, shifting 30 million copies.A quick check on the list of most expensive movies ever made shows that the costliest, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, cost $447 million at the time, less than all three games. The most expensive back-to-back production was the Avengers Infinity War and Endgame films. They cost a total of $1 billion, which is still less than the three CoD titles combined ($1.79 billion). And remember that marketing costs would push the games' budget even higher.Not all of them were worth the moneyGame companies tend to be quite secretive when it comes to their titles' development costs, partly because they don't want people to know how much was wasted on a flop. Skull and Bones, for example, is rumored to have cost more than $850 million. // Related StoriesRight now, 2020's Genshin Impact is above CoD Black Ops Cold War as officially the most expensive game ever at $900 million, but that includes $200 million added annually for ongoing costs the initial costs were just $100 million.Almost all of the Monopoly Go! budget went on marketingIt's expected that GTA VI will top the list when it arrives (hopefully) this year with costs exceeding $1 billion.Patrick Kelly, Activision's current head of creative on the Call of Duty franchise, was the one who revealed the costs in the lawsuit filed against the company. It related to the 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.The suit, filed in May 2024, partially blamed the shooting that killed 19 students and two adults on Instagram and CoD, claiming they influenced the teenager who carried out the murders.

What just happened? Intel's new co-CEO Michelle Johnston Holthaus firmly dispelled rumors about the company's exit from the discrete graphics market during her keynote address at CES 2025. This announcement comes on the heels of controversial comments made by former CEO Pat Gelsinger, who was ousted from the tech giant last month. During her presentation, Holthaus emphatically stated, "We are very committed to the discrete graphics market and will continue to make strategic investments in this direction." This declaration directly contradicts Gelsinger's previous remarks in November, which suggested a diminishing need for discrete graphics investments. Specifically, he said during the company's earnings call that Intel's focus on graphics will increasingly become "large integrated graphics capabilities," which the market took to mean that it would build graphics into CPUs, not gaming graphics cards.The reassurance from its new leadership that Intel is still committed to the graphics market comes at a critical time for the company. Despite recent challenges, including the perceived financial failure of the Lunar Lake laptop processors, Intel's silver lining has been in the graphics card market. The company recently celebrated its first major success with the Intel Arc B580 graphics card, which sold out rapidly in most markets.However, industry analysts remain cautious about Intel's long-term strategy. Some speculate that Holthaus' upbeat tone might be masking a more gradual retreat from the discrete graphics space. The company's focus may be shifting towards AI-centric developments, mirroring recent trends set by competitors AMD and Nvidia.Nevertheless, Intel is pushing forward with its graphics card lineup. Holthaus announced the imminent launch of the B570 GPU, an even more budget-friendly option than the popular B580.It should be noted, though, that while the Arc B580 has garnered positive reviews, it's not without its challenges. Users have reported significant performance issues when pairing the card with CPUs older than five years, resulting in stuttering and low frame rates in many games. This problem isn't limited to older Intel processors; similar issues have been observed with AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X. // Related StoriesMeanwhile, the upcoming B570 model is garnering attention from tech enthusiasts. While both cards share the same architectural lineage, they cater to different segments of the market with distinct specifications and price points.The Arc B580 has 12GB of GDDR6 memory, positioning it as a capable contender for high-performance gaming at 1440p with ultra-quality settings. This memory configuration gives it an edge in handling memory-intensive tasks and games, especially at higher resolutions.In contrast, the soon-to-be-released B570 is set to feature 10GB of dedicated GPU memory. This 2GB reduction in VRAM might impact its performance in certain scenarios, particularly in applications or games that demand substantial memory resources. While Intel has yet to release specific performance metrics for the B570, industry experts anticipate it will be tailored more towards 1080p gaming performance.

One of Hollywoods biggest sliding doors moments involves Will Smith turning down the role of Neo in The Matrix.Judging by his recent Instagram post, Smith might get another shot in the battle of man versus machine.Smith posted a cryptic message on his Instagram. In 1997, the Wachowskis offered Will Smith the role of Neo in The Matrix, the message reads. Smith turned it down. He chose Wild Wild West, believing it was a better fit for him at the time. But the question remains: What would The Matrix have been like with Will Smith as Neo? Wake up, Will. The Matrix has youRecommended VideosIs this a casting announcement for The Matrix 5? Should we expect Smith to act in the next Matrix film? Nothing is official. This could all be a PR ruse to promote a product or another project. However, Smith is no stranger to nostalgic roles. Last year, he headlined Bad Boys: Ride or Die,the fourth film in the franchise. Smith also plans to star in I Am Legend 2Please enable Javascript to view this contentWill Smith has released a cryptic post teasing that he may be starring in a new MATRIX movie. pic.twitter.com/pyzTQ5k7Ah DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) January 6, 2025RelatedIn 2019, Smith posted a YouTube video to explain why he turned down a role in The Matrixto star inWild Wild West. After makingMen inBlack,a movie Smith initially passed on, the Wachowskis pitchedThe Matrixto the Fresh Prince himself. Smith didnt connect with the pitch and ultimately passed on the role, which he admittedly regrets. Smith mentioned that if he played Neo, Val Kilmer was being eyed to star as Morpheus. Smith turned down The Matrix, and Kilmer didnt play Morpheus, opening the door for Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne to step in.In April 2024, Warner Bros. tapped Drew Goddard to write and direct a new Matrix movie, marking the first entry in the franchise without a Wachowski directing. However, Lana Wachowski will be an executive producer on The Matrix 5.Why I Turned Down The Matrix | STORYTIMEAfter the Matrix trilogy, the fourth film, The Matrix Resurrections, was released in 2021.Resurrections failed to churn a profit, grossing $159 million against a $190 million budget. The polarizing film was controversially released in theaters and on Max the same day, which negatively affected the box office total.Editors Recommendations

Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the launch of the iMac G4, which is still regarded as one of Apples best Macs to this day. When it arrived in 2002, it redefined what we should expect from computer hardware and software, yet it only lasted a couple of short years before being discontinued. What happened, and why was it so important?Released in 1998, the iMac G3 the direct predecessor of the iMac G4 reinvented Apple and helped get the company back on its feet when it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Yet despite its playful colors and design innovations, theres no doubt that it was limited by the technology of the time, with its huge chassis dictated by the bulky CRT monitor contained within.Recommended VideosThe iMac G4, in contrast, came much closer to the slimline vision that has animated much of Apples work for decades. By the time it launched in 2002, technology had advanced enough that svelte LCD displays were affordable enough for consumer computers. Out went the CRT screen and the heavy, boxy design it necessitated, and in came a new breed of thinness. But there was more. Inspired by the look and form of a sunflower, the iMac G4s display was mounted on a moveable arm, allowing you to position the screen however you wanted a genius innovation at the time. The base of the machine was tiny, too, housing the computers internal components in a cleverly disguised manner.RelatedThe inexorable march of technology granted Apple much more freedom to design the computer it wanted to, to follow Steve Jobs degree that each component should be true to itself. The iMac G4 was a notable example of Apple being able to craft a product that aligned perfectly with its philosophy instead of being limited by what was technologically possible.This approach reappeared in later products like the iPod and the iPhone. With these devices, Apple made it very clear that every element of the product should be there because it must be there anything that was not essential, in contrast, should be removed. The iMac G4 was one of the first times this vision really came to fruition, where Apple could act unconstrained by what the technology could and could not do.Maxime Bober / FlickrThe iMac G4 was influential in other ways. It dropped the bright, translucent plastics of the iMac G3 and ushered in a new era of white and silver a look that persisted for years among Apple products (from other Macs to the iPod) and influenced the companys rivals to no end.The iMac G4 was also the first Mac to launch with OS X and its Aqua user interface. Its ultra-modern blue and metallic gray design blew all competitors out of the water, making Windows (and past versions of Mac OS) look positively medieval.The iMac G3 was obviously a computer it may have looked different from every other PC on the market, but you couldnt mistake it for any other class of device. The iMac G4, though, was so compact that people had trouble working out where the computer part of it actually lived. Just as the iMac G3 had done before it, the iMac G4 redefined what a computer should look like and helped establish the reputation of Apples designers as some of the foremost technology tastemakers on the planet.Felix Winkelnkemper / WikimediaDespite its commercial and critical success, though, the iMac G4 lasted just a couple of years and was replaced by the much more conservatively designed iMac G5 in 2004. One reason was that displays were getting larger, which made balancing one on a moveable arm a much trickier prospect. The 20-inch iMac G4 weighed nearly twice as much as the 17-inch model, for instance, due to all of the extra weight needed to counterbalance its sized-up screen.Meanwhile, more powerful chips meant better cooling was required, which a small chassis like that of the iMac G4 could not provide. As with the trash can Mac Pro, Apple had designed itself into a corner and couldnt rectify the situation without another total redesign.If you look at it purely in terms of shelf life, the iMac G4 was a mere blip on the radar, a computing curiosity that left the stage as quickly as it arrived. Yet its outsized influence has lasted more than two decades its look continues to influence designers, with some devoted fans keeping it updated with new chips to this day. Theres even talk that Apple might revive the iMac G4s aesthetic with an all-new smart home display in the next year or two.Thats a legacy thats unlikely to fade any time soon. Considering the iMac G4 was only on sale for a little over two years, its a remarkable achievement.Editors Recommendations

Tencent was added to the Defense Departments list of Chinese military companies, contributing to a selloff in U.S.-listed shares of the WeChat owner.