Google's reckoning Google and DOJ tussle over how AI will remake the web in antitrust closing arguments Google and the DOJ get one last chance to make their cases. Ryan Whitwam – May 30, 2025 5:40 pm | 15 Credit: Ryan Whitwam Credit: Ryan Whitwam Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more From its humble beginnings in the late 20th century, Google has come to dominate online searches, putting it squarely in the US government's antitrust crosshairs. The ongoing search antitrust case threatens to upend Google's dominance, giving smaller players a chance to thrive and possibly wiping others out. After wrapping up testimony in the case earlier this month, lawyers for Google and the Department of Justice have now made their closing arguments. The DOJ won the initial trial, securing a ruling that Google used anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly in general search. During the time this case has taken to meander its way through the legal system, the online landscape has been radically altered, making it harder than ever to envision a post-Google Internet. To address Google's monopoly, the DOJ is asking United States District Judge Amit Mehta to impose limits on Google's business dealings and order a divestment of the Chrome browser. Forcing the sale of Chrome would be a major penalty and a coup for the DOJ lawyers, but this issue has been overshadowed somewhat as the case drags on. During closing arguments, the two sides dueled over how Google's search deals and the rise of AI could change the Internet as we know it. Collateral damage This case has examined the myriad ways Google used its influence and money to suppress competition. One of the DOJ's main targets is the placement deals Google signs with companies like Apple and Mozilla to be the default search provider. Google has contended that people can change the defaults anytime they wish, but the DOJ produced evidence at trial that almost no one does, and Google knows that. During closing arguments,  Mehta asked both sides about testimony from a Mozilla executive alleging that losing the Google search deal could destroy the company. Similarly, Apple's Eddie Cue said he loses sleep over the possibility of losing the Google revenue—unsurprising as the arrangement is believed to net the company $20 billion per year. Should Firefox die to teach Google a lesson? Credit: Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle Should Firefox die to teach Google a lesson? Credit: Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle The DOJ's David Dahlquist admitted that there could be some "private impact" but contended Apple and Mozilla are overestimating the risk. Mehta didn't seem totally satisfied with the government's position, noting that he didn't want to damage other markets in an effort to fix search. Google's counsel also went after the government on the privacy front. One of the DOJ's proposed remedies would require Google to license its search index and algorithm, which CEO Sundar Pichai claimed was no better than a spinoff of Google's core product. Google also claims that forcing it to license search would put everyone's privacy at risk because it has a vast amount of user data that fuels search. Google attorney John Schmidtlein said the DOJ's treatment of user privacy in the remedies was a "complete failure." Mehta questioned the government lawyers pointedly on the issue of privacy, which he noted was barely addressed in the remedy filings. The DOJ's Adam Severt suggested an independent committee would have to be empaneled to decide how to handle Google's user data, but he was vague on how long such a process could take. Google's team didn't like this idea at all. Case may hinge on AI During testimony in early May, Mehta commented that the role AI plays in the trial had evolved very quickly. In 2023, everyone in his courtroom agreed that the impact of AI on search was still years away, and that's definitely not the case now. That same thread is present in closing arguments. Mehta asked the DOJ's Dahlquist if someone new was just going to "come off the sidelines" and build a new link-based search product, given  the developments with AI. Dahlquist didn't answer directly, noting that although generative AI products didn't exist at the time covered by the antitrust action, they would be key to search going forward. Google certainly believes the AI future is already here—it has gone all-in with AI search over the past year. At the same time, Google is seeking to set itself apart from AI upstarts. "Generative AI companies are not trying to out-Google Google," said Schmidtlein. Google's team contends that its actions have not harmed any AI products like ChatGPT or Perplexity, and at any rate, they are not in the search market as defined by the court. Mehta mused about the future of search, suggesting we may have to rethink what a general search engine is in 2025. "Maybe people don’t want 10 blue links anymore," he said. The Chromium problem and an elegant solution At times during the case, Mehta has expressed skepticism about the divestment of Chrome. During closing arguments, Dahlquist reiterated the close relationship between search and browsers, reminding the court that 35 percent of Google's search volume comes from Chrome. Mehta now seems more receptive to a Chrome split than before, perhaps in part because the effects of the other remedies are becoming so murky. He called the Chrome divestment "less speculative" and "more elegant" than the data and placement remedies. Google again claimed, as it has throughout the remedy phase, that forcing it to give up Chrome is unsupported in the law and that Chrome's dominance is a result of innovation. Even if Mehta leans toward ordering this remedy, Chromium may be a sticking point. The judge seems unconvinced that the supposed buyers—a group which apparently includes almost every major tech firm—have the scale and expertise needed to maintain Chromium. This open source project forms the foundation of many other browsers, making its continued smooth operation critical to the web. If Google gives up Chrome, Chromium goes with it, but what about the people who maintain it? The DOJ contends that it's common for employees to come along with an acquisition, but that's far from certain. There was some discussion of ensuring a buyer could commit to hiring staff to maintain Chromium. The DOJ suggests Google could be ordered to provide financial incentives to ensure critical roles are filled, but that sounds potentially messy. A Chrome sale seems more likely now than it did earlier, but nothing is assured yet. Following the final arguments from each side, it's up to Mehta to mull over the facts before deciding Google's fate. That's expected to happen in August, but nothing will change for Google right away. The company has already confirmed it will appeal the case, hoping to have the original ruling overturned. It could still be years before this case reaches its ultimate conclusion. Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam Senior Technology Reporter Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he's written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards. 15 Comments

On Friday, President Trump publicly threatened a 25% tariff on all iPhones not made in the United States, catching both Apple and his own administration off guard. Now, The New York Times reports it seems the move was likely payback for Tim Cook skipping Trump’s recent Middle East trip. The President goes east You’ve probably seen a few photos from Trump’s CEO-studded tour of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. From Nvidia’s Jensen Huang to OpenAI’s Sam Altman, the president’s entourage read like a Silicon Valley star lineup. But one high-profile exec was missing: Apple CEO Tim Cook, who had been invited but declined. And according to the Times, that decision stuck with Trump throughout the trip. During a speech in Riyadh, for instance, the president praised Huang for showing up, then took a shot: “Tim Cook isn’t here, but you are.” Later, in Qatar, he told attendees he had “a little problem with Tim Cook”, as he criticized Apple’s growing manufacturing footprint in India. Hours later, the tariff threat went live: “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!” Trump and his allies have been pushing for Apple to bring iPhone manufacturing stateside, but Friday’s threat felt less like a strategic move and more like targeted punishment. Apple had just narrowly avoided a 145% China-related tariff in April, and now it’s facing a new one. As Tripp Mickle notes in the Times’ report, the recent shift in tone has put Apple in an unprecedented position regarding its relationship with Trump. During his first term, Cook managed to keep Apple out of the White House’s crosshairs by playing diplomat-in-chief, showing up when it counted and making just enough concessions to keep the peace. Now, it appears Trump is demanding that Cook, who personally donated US$1 million to his inauguration, abide by his whims further. And as Cook seems to be drawing the line, this appears to be frustrating Trump, who has always boasted about his close relationship with Apple’s CEO. Whether the new tariff actually comes to pass is still an open question. But the message has already landed: skip the photo ops, and there’s a price to pay. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re 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. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

James Gentz has seen birds aplenty on his East Texas rice-and-crawfish farm: snow geese and pintails, spoonbills and teal. The whooping crane couple, though, he found “magnificent.” These endangered, long-necked behemoths arrived in 2021 and set to building a nest amid his flooded fields. “I just loved to see them,” Gentz says. Not every farmer is thrilled to host birds. Some worry about the spread of avian flu, others are concerned that the birds will eat too much of their valuable crops. But as an unstable climate delivers too little water, careening temperatures and chaotic storms, the fates of human food production and birds are ever more linked—with the same climate anomalies that harm birds hurting agriculture too. In some places, farmer cooperation is critical to the continued existence of whooping cranes and other wetland-dependent waterbird species, close to one-third of which are experiencing declines. Numbers of waterfowl (think ducks and geese) have crashed by 20 percent since 2014, and long-legged wading shorebirds like sandpipers have suffered steep population losses. Conservation-minded biologists, nonprofits, government agencies, and farmers themselves are amping up efforts to ensure that each species survives and thrives. With federal support in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, their work is more important (and threatened) than ever. Their collaborations, be they domestic or international, are highly specific, because different regions support different kinds of agriculture—grasslands, or deep or shallow wetlands, for example, favored by different kinds of birds. Key to the efforts is making it financially worthwhile for farmers to keep—or tweak—practices to meet bird forage and habitat needs. Traditional crawfish-and-rice farms in Louisiana, as well as in Gentz’s corner of Texas, mimic natural freshwater wetlands that are being lost to saltwater intrusion from sea level rise. Rice grows in fields that are flooded to keep weeds down; fields are drained for harvest by fall. They are then re-flooded to cover crawfish burrowed in the mud; these are harvested in early spring—and the cycle begins again. That second flooding coincides with fall migration—a genetic and learned behavior that determines where birds fly and when—and it lures massive numbers of egrets, herons, bitterns, and storks that dine on the crustaceans as well as on tadpoles, fish, and insects in the water. On a biodiverse crawfish-and-rice farm, “you can see 30, 40, 50 species of birds, amphibians, reptiles, everything,” says Elijah Wojohn, a shorebird conservation biologist at nonprofit Manomet Conservation Sciences in Massachusetts. In contrast, if farmers switch to less water-intensive corn and soybean production in response to climate pressures, “you’ll see raccoons, deer, crows, that’s about it.” Wojohn often relies on word-of-mouth to hook farmers on conservation; one learned to spot whimbrel, with their large, curved bills, got “fired up” about them and told all his farmer friends. Such farmer-to-farmer dialogue is how you change things among this sometimes change-averse group, Wojohn says. In the Mississippi Delta and in California, where rice is generally grown without crustaceans, conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited have long boosted farmers’ income and staying power by helping them get paid to flood fields in winter for hunters. This attracts overwintering ducks and geese—considered an extra “crop”—that gobble leftover rice and pond plants; the birds also help to decompose rice stalks so farmers don’t have to remove them. Ducks Unlimited’s goal is simple, says director of conservation innovation Scott Manley: Keep rice farmers farming rice. This is especially important as a changing climate makes that harder. 2024 saw a huge push, with the organization conserving 1 million acres for waterfowl. Some strategies can backfire. In Central New York, where dwindling winter ice has seen waterfowl lingering past their habitual migration times, wildlife managers and land trusts are buying less productive farmland to plant with native grasses; these give migratory fuel to ducks when not much else is growing. But there’s potential for this to produce too many birds for the land available back in their breeding areas, says Andrew Dixon, director of science and conservation at the Mohamed Bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund in Abu Dhabi, and coauthor of an article about the genetics of bird migration in the 2024 Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. This can damage ecosystems meant to serve them. Recently, conservation efforts spanning continents and thousands of miles have sprung up. One seeks to protect buff-breasted sandpipers. As they migrate 18,000 miles to and from the High Arctic where they nest, the birds experience extreme hunger—hyperphagia—that compels them to voraciously devour insects in short grasses where the bugs proliferate. But many stops along the birds’ round-trip route are threatened. There are water shortages affecting agriculture in Texas, where the birds forage at turf grass farms; grassland loss and degradation in Paraguay; and in Colombia, conversion of forage lands to exotic grasses and rice paddies these birds cannot use. Conservationists say it’s critical to protect habitat for “buffies” all along their route, and to ensure that the winters these small shorebirds spend around Uruguay’s coastal lagoons are a food fiesta. To that end, Manomet conservation specialist Joaquín Aldabe, in partnership with Uruguay’s agriculture ministry, has so far taught 40 local ranchers how to improve their cattle grazing practices. Rotationally moving the animals from pasture to pasture means grasses stay the right length for insects to flourish. There are no easy fixes in the North American northwest, where bird conservation is in crisis. Extreme drought is causing breeding grounds, molting spots, and migration stopover sites to vanish. It is also endangering the livelihoods of farmers, who feel the push to sell land to developers. From Southern Oregon to Central California, conservation allies have provided monetary incentives for water-strapped grain farmers to leave behind harvest debris to improve survivability for the 1 billion birds that pass through every year, and for ranchers to flood-irrigate unused pastures. One treacherous leg of the northwest migration route is the parched Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. For three recent years, “we saw no migrating birds. I mean, the peak count was zero,” says John Vradenburg, supervisory biologist of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex. He and myriad private, public, and Indigenous partners are working to conjure more water for the basin’s human and avian denizens, as perennial wetlands become seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetlands transition to temporary wetlands, and temporary wetlands turn to arid lands. Taking down four power dams and one levee has stretched the Klamath River’s water across the landscape, creating new streams and connecting farm fields to long-separated wetlands. But making the most of this requires expansive thinking. Wetland restoration—now endangered by loss of funding from the current administration—would help drought-afflicted farmers by keeping water tables high. But what if farmers could also receive extra money for their businesses via eco-credits, akin to carbon credits, for the work those wetlands do to filter-clean farm runoff? And what if wetlands could function as aquaculture incubators for juvenile fish, before stocking rivers? Klamath tribes are invested in restoring endangered c’waam and koptu sucker fish, and this could help them achieve that goal. As birds’ traditional resting and nesting spots become inhospitable, a more sobering question is whether improvements can happen rapidly enough. The blistering pace of climate change gives little chance for species to genetically adapt, although some are changing their behaviors. That means that the work of conservationists to find and secure adequate, supportive farmland and rangeland as the birds seek out new routes has become a sprint against time. This story originally appeared at Knowable Magazine. Lela Nargi, Knowable Magazine Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens. 0 Comments

An image showing the counterfeit Apple chargers looking to cross the U.S. border / Image credits - ABC13 The Port of Houston witnessed a massive shipment of Apple accessories, which the U.S. Customs and Border Protection believed to be a suspicious entry of goods into the country. Sure enough, a new report states that upon further inspection, it was revealed that these were counterfeit chargers and cables in the thousands, with an estimated street value of more than $7 million. With the recent tariffs announcement, which enforces levies on goods arriving from overseas markets, sellers will attempt to cross such shipments without being detected. Given that the trade wars between China and the U.S. show no signs of concluding, such illegal entries will likely pick up in pace. Value of seized Apple chargers and cables was an estimated $7.3 million, with sellers attempting to evade tax payments and pocket a decent profit from these sales As reported by ABC13, with the details spotted by AppleInsider, a shipment of around 373,000 fake Apple chargers and cables was hauled by the authorities, with the agency stating that such products are typically in their crosshairs because counterfeiters try to avoid tax payments as much as possible. When confirming with Apple representatives, it was concluded that these were not authentic accessories. The bust involved 7,460 cartons, and customs agents mentioned that the products featured the Apple trademark. The authorities have warned customers to only make purchases from legitimate sources and pay attention to the prices. While the efforts of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection must be commended, these incidents will increase in number. Such counterfeit accessories might not just be limited to Apple, though we assume that these products will be arriving in a higher number compared to others because the California-based giant’s devices sell in droves in the United States. Smugglers will definitely resort to more creative measures when bringing in fake chargers and cables into the country, but the best practice to be observed by customers is to avoid purchasing from unauthorized sources. News Source: ABC13 Deal of the Day

As Trump axes the Digital Equity Act, other digital divide initiatives remain at risk. Credit: Kathleen Flynn / The Washington Post via Getty Images The Trump administration continues with its cost-slashing, anti-DEI agenda, and its coming for nationwide efforts to close the digital divide next.On May 8, President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social that he was directing the end of the Biden-Harris era Digital Equity Act. Trump called the program — which allocated $2.75 billion to digital inclusion programs — "racist" and "illegal." Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) abruptly terminated grants for 20 different state projects under the act, including digital access in K-12 schools, veteran and senior programs, and rural connectivity efforts. The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) called the decision a "significant setback" to universal access goals. "SETDA stands with our state members and partner organizations who have been diligently building inclusive broadband and digital access plans rooted in community need, engagement, and systemic transformation. Equitable access to technology is not a partisan issue–it is a public good." You May Also Like The decision points to an uncertain future for existing broadband and digital connectivity efforts managed or funded by the federal government. Since most serve specific communities and demographics which are at the highest risk of being technologically disconnected or left behind, they have entered the crosshairs of the administration's "anti-woke" crusade. Indigenous connectivity advocates, for example, warned that a Trump presidency would have an immediate impact on rural broadband projects that were in the process of breaking ground, as the president simultaneously promised to shake up the FCC and whittle down the federal government's spending. Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! “Ongoing efforts to bridge the digital divide in the U.S. face significant challenges with the recent termination of the Digital Equity Act, and potential drastic changes coming to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program," said Sharayah Lane, senior advisor of community connectivity for the global nonprofit the Internet Society and member of the Lummi Nation. "This will critically impact the future of affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet access in underserved areas, further limiting essential education, healthcare, and economic opportunities."The Biden administration, which pledged billions of federal dollars to building out the nation's high speed broadband and fiber optic network, had made closing the digital divide a central component to its massive federal spending package, including launching the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and the BEAD initiative. BEAD funds, in particular, were split up between state broadband infrastructure projects, including 19 grants over $1 billion. But now the funds are being pulled out from under them. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has had the $42 billion BEAD budget under review since Trump took office, and has falsely claimed that the program "has not connected a single person to the internet," but is rather a "woke mandate" under the previous presidency. Related Stories Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to open up an auction of highly sought after spectrum bands to serve WiFi, 5G, and 6G projects under his "One Big Beautiful Bill" — a move that may sideline rural connectivity projects focused on building reliable, physical connections to high speed internet. Advocates have long fought for federal investment in "missing middle miles" of fiber optic cables and broadband, rather than unstable satellite connections, such as those promised by Elon Musk's Starlink. "We need to prioritize investments in sustainable infrastructure through programs like BEAD and the Digital Equity Act to ensure long-term, affordable Internet access for all Americans, strengthen the economy, and bolster the nation’s overall digital resilience," said Lane. Chase DiBenedetto Social Good Reporter Chase joined Mashable's Social Good team in 2020, covering online stories about digital activism, climate justice, accessibility, and media representation. Her work also captures how these conversations manifest in politics, popular culture, and fandom. Sometimes she's very funny.

The Large Magellanic Cloud, which is visible only from the Southern Hemisphere, has been caught in the crosshairs of the Hubble Space Telescope.

Earlier this year, Nvidia announced its new line of 50 Series GPUs with a hot new feature in tow: "Multi Frame Generation." Building on early frame gen tech, these new GPUs allow games to create multiple video frames based on a single frame rendered the normal way. But is that a good thing? Or are these just "fake frames?" Well, it's complicated.On a very basic level, "frame generation" refers to the technique of using deep learning AI models to generate frames in between two frames of a game rendered by the GPU. Your graphics card does the more grindy work of creating "Frame One" and "Frame Three" based on 3D models, lighting, textures, etc., but then frame generation tools take those two images and make a guess at what "Frame Two" should look like.Multi Frame Generation takes this a step further. Instead of just generating one extra frame, it generates several. This means that, on the highest settings, three out of every four frames you see could be generated, rather than rendered directly. Whether that's a good thing, though, depends heavily on what type of game you play and what you want your gaming experience to be.What's the difference between upscaling and frame generation?Nvidia's new Multi Frame Generation comes as part of its announcement of DLSS 4. DLSS stands for Deep Learning Super Sampling and, as the name implies, its earlier iterations weren't about frame generation, but rather supersampling (or upscaling). In this version of the tech, a GPU would render a lower-resolution version of a frame—say, 1080p—and then upscale it to a higher resolution like 1440p or 2160p (4K). The "deep learning" in DLSS refers to training a machine learning model on each game individually to give the upscaler a better idea of what the higher res frame should look like.Nowadays, DLSS refers more to a whole suite of tools Nvidia uses to eek out better performance, and the above method is usually referred to as Super Resolution. Frame generation, on the other hand, takes two entire frames and generates an entirely new frame between them from scratch.Of course, it's also possible to use all of this tech simultaneously. You can end up in situations where your GPU is technically only rendering one lower-resolution frame for every two—or more, on the newest GPUs—full-res frames you see. If that sounds like a lot of extrapolation, well, it is. And, incredibly, it works pretty well. Most of the time.When is frame generation useful?In a relatively short amount of time, we've seen the demand placed on GPUs explode. As mentioned above, 4K resolutions contain quadruple the amount of pixel information as 1080p ones. Moreover, while media like movies and TV have stuck at a relatively consistent 24-30 frames per second, gamers increasingly demand at least 60fps as a baseline, often pushing that even higher to 120fps or 240fps for high-end machines. And do not get me started on Samsung's absurd display capable of supporting up to 500fps.If your GPU had to calculate every pixel of a 4K image 120 (or 500) times every second, the resulting fire coming from your PC would be visible from space—at least for games with the kind of detailed, ray-traced graphics we're used to from AAA titles. From that perspective, frame generation isn't just helpful, it's necessary. On Nvidia's latest GPUs, Multi Frame Generation can allow a game to increase its frame rate by multiple hundred frames per second even in 4K, while still looking pretty great. That's just not a frame rate that's possible at that resolution without an industrial rig.When it works (and we'll come back to that), frame generation can allow for smoother movement and less eye strain. If you want to get a taste of the difference, this little tool lets you experiment with different frame rates (as long as your display supports it). Try comparing 30fps to 60fps or 120fps and follow each ball with your eyes. The effect gets even more stark if you turn off motion blur which, for many games, would be the default.For chaotic games with a lot of movement, those extra frames can be a huge benefit, even if they're not exactly perfect. If you were to take a close look at the images frame-by-frame, you might see some artifacts, but they might be less noticeable while playing—at least, that's how it should work in theory.What are the downsides of frame generation?In practice, how well this tech works can vary greatly on a per-game basis, as well as by how powerful your machine is. For example, going from 30fps to 60fps with frame generation can look jankier than if you're going from 60fps to 120fps. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that at lower frame rates, there's more time in between reference frames, which means more guess work for the frames being generated. That leads to more noise and artifacts.Whether those artifacts will bother you is also highly subjective. For example, if you're swinging through the city in Spider-Man 2, and the trees in the background look stranger than they should, would you even notice? On the other hand, for slower-paced atmospheric games like Alan Wake II, where graphical detail and set design is more important for the vibes, ghosting and smearing can seem more pronounced.It should also be noted that artifacts aren't necessarily inherent to all frame generation. For starters, better input frames can lead to better frame generation. Nvidia, for example, is touting new models behind Super Resolution and Ray Reconstruction—a whole other piece of tech for improving ray tracing results that we simply don't have enough time to get into—to improve the images that get passed to the frame generation portion of the pipeline.You can think of it a bit like a giant, complex version of a game of telephone. The only way to get the most accurate, detailed frames from your game is to render them directly. The more you add steps to extrapolate extra pixels and frames, the more chances there are for mistakes. However, our tools are getting progressively better at cutting down on those mistakes. So, it's up to you to decide whether more frames or more detail is worth it for you.Why frame generation is (probably) bad for competitive gamesThere's one major exception to this whole argument, and that's when it comes to competitive games. If you play online games like Overwatch 2, Marvel Rivals, or Fortnite, then smooth motion isn't necessarily your primary concern. You might be more concerned with latency—which is to say, the delay between when you react to something, and when your game has registered your reaction.Frame generation complicates latency issues because it requires creating frames out of order. Recall our earlier example: The GPU generates Frame One, then Frame Three, then the frame generator comes up with what Frame Two should be. In that scenario, the game can't actually show you Frame Two until it's figured out what frame three should be.Now, in most cases this isn't usually a problem. At 120fps, each frame is only on screen for about 8.33 milliseconds. Your brain can't even register that short of a delay, so it's not likely to cause a huge issue. In fact, human reaction time is typically measured in the hundreds of milliseconds. For a completely unscientific proof, go ahead and try out this reaction time test. Let me know when you get under 10 milliseconds. I'll wait.However, this does become an issue in competitive gaming, because frame delays aren't the only latency issues you're dealing with. There's latency between your keyboard and your computer, between your computer and the server, and between the server and the other players. Most of those individual links in the chain might be pretty low, but they have to get synced up somewhere. That "somewhere" is in the game's tick rate. This is how often the game you're playing updates on the server. For example, Overwatch 2 has a tick rate of 64. That means that every second, the server updates what has happened in the game 64 times, or once every 15.63 milliseconds.That's just enough that if, say, your game shows you our rhetorical Frame One, where the enemy Cassidy is in your crosshairs, but hasn't yet updated to Frame Three, when he's not, the server could have ticked over before your screen has updated. That could mean your shot registers as a miss even though it feels like it should have hit. This is also the one issue that can actually get worse with Multi Frame Generation.There are ways to mitigate this hit—for example, Nvidia's Reflex tech that reduces input latency in other areas—but it's not something that can be avoided entirely. If you're playing competitive online games, you're better off turning your graphics settings down lower to get a better frame rate, rather than using frame generation for now.