Vital Limited (NZX: VTL) advises that yesterday evening the Takeovers Panel made a determination and issued an order regarding the takeover expenses that were incurred by Vital in response to Empire Technology Limited’s (Empire) takeover proposals Read...

Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chips have helped lead the market for laptops with epically long battery life, but they’ve had a key weakness: games. To help address this, Qualcomm said Thursday that it will enable the hit multiplayer game Fortnite to run on Snapdragon, as well as Epic’s Easy Anti-Cheat software. The latter service is probably the more important of the two. Epic, as well as many other multiplayer games, requires that anti-cheat software be added to prevent cheating. But it doesn’t have to be just present — it should run at the kernel level to minimize the CPU consumption such services provide. Qualcomm says that it has done just that. Fortnite should be available to Windows on Arm devices later this year that are powered by Snapdragon chips, and Qualcomm said that it was “working” with Epic to bring Easy Anti-Cheat to the platform as well. To date, the vast majority of games run on X86 CPUs, rather than Windows on Arm. Qualcomm is obviously looking to change that. A few games do work — Control, for example — and Qualcomm has said that it is continually working on ensuring compatibility between popular games and its processors. Qualcomm, though, hasn’t really supported its aggressive position from a year ago that most games should run on the Snapdragon X Elite. Now, its stance is more that the optimization process will never really be completed. Compatibility with fundamental “platform” services like Easy Anti-Cheat will help that, however. “Hundreds of today’s multiplayer games—including Fortnite—rely on Easy Anti-Cheat to counter hacking and cheating in multiplayer PC games,” Qualcomm said. “In addition to releasing Windows on Snapdragon anti-cheat support for Fortnite we will bring this support to developers through an Epic Online Services SDK release. This will enable developers using Easy Anti-Cheat to bring this compatibility to their own games. “ To its credit, Qualcomm has quickly moved to address areas where third-party software didn’t run on its own processors, such as app like Google Drive and some VPNs. Dave Durnil, the global head of gaming and Snapdragon Studios, told reporters on a call Thursday that the company has worked with other anti-cheat services like BattleEye and the anticheat technology built into Roblox. “We’re all in on gaming — PC gaming.” Durnil said, Read...

If your devices aren’t charging fast enough, it might be due to the wall plug (also known as a power adapter) you’re using. Getting ultra-fast charge times could be as simple as upgrading yours to this 100W Anker Prime wall plug that’s now on sale for $55 on Amazon. This Anker Prime GaN charger features three ports: two USB-C and a USB-A. The USB-C ports can hit 100W when used solo, while the USB-A maxes out at 22.5W alone. (With multiple ports in use, the 100W total output gets split up. For example, with all three plugged in, it can deliver 46W + 30W + 22.5W, respectively.) You can connect your laptop, phone, and earbuds to keep them all charged in a jiffy. And with this wall charger using GaN technology, it’s way smaller than your usual power adapter and generates less heat. That makes it great for travel in conjunction with its foldable prongs, protecting it from breakage and preventing it from scratching your other valuables. You can tuck this away in any bag and not worry about it at all. Get your own Anker Prime 100W wall charger for $55 on Amazon while you can! It’s a fantastic price for an ultra-fast 3-device power adapter. And don’t forget about Amazon’s Spring Sale coming up! There are already lots of great early deals worth jumping on. Save 37% on Anker`s tiny yet powerful wall chargerBuy now at Amazon Read...

NETGEAR has joined the DPP, aiming to enhance its role in next-gen content creation and distribution, leveraging its expertise in network technology. Read...

An Australian company called Cortical Labs has developed a computer powered by lab-grown human brain cells, Gizmodo reports. The computer, known as CL1, is described as the world’s first “code deployable biological computer” and is now available for pre-order — for a price in the $35,000 range. Don’t want to buy your own device? The company also offers “Wetware-as-a-Service” via which you can rent bio-computer processing power via the cloud. CL1 consists of lab-grown neurons grown on a glass-and-metal electrode array. They’re connected to 59 electrodes, creating a stable neural network. The system is encased in a life support unit that keeps the neurons alive by mimicking the body’s organ functions, including heart pumping, kidney-like waste filtration, and gas mixing of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. According to Cortical Labs, the neurons are placed in a nutrient solution and receive their information from the company’s Biological Intelligence Operating System (biOS), which creates a simulated world in which the neurons receive sensory input and produce responses that affect the environment. CL1 is designed as a high-performance closed loop, where neurons interact with software in real time. The system can stay alive for up to six months and is compatible with USB devices. Cortical Labs demonstrated an early version of the technology by teaching the system to play Pong. They claim that biological computers can rival or surpass digital AI systems, especially when it comes to understanding the basic mechanisms of intelligence. According to the company’s Chief Scientific Officer, Brett Kagan, a network of 120 CL1 devices could give researchers insight into how genes and proteins affect learning. The technology can also be used in drug development and disease modeling by simulating neurological processes at the molecular level. Read...

Amber Technology has launched the Ochno Room Kit, a comprehensive solution for enhancing collaboration in hybrid meeting spaces, featuring dual 8K support. Read...

After months of speculation, including by yours truly, the U.S. Department of Justice has doubled down on its recommendation that Google be forced to divest itself of Chrome in punishment for operating an illegal monopoly. Personally, I can’t wait. How we got here It was over six months ago that the DOJ won its four-year suit against Google, which was found in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta found that Google had intentionally created and maintained an illegal monopoly by using agreements that forced its business partners to use Chrome and Google Search. Google’s own Android operating system, in conjunction with its search agreements with Apple for the iPhone and iPad, cemented its unassailable position as the mobile web boomed. Initially there were a lot of options on the table. The Department of Justice considered forcing Google to sell off or otherwise get rid of Chrome, Google Search, Android, or some combination of all three. Google appealed — indeed, might still be appealing, considering the slow pace of these big intersections between business and law. There was also a big question mark over whether any of this would matter: August 2024 was before a business-friendly Donald Trump won a second presidential term, and before Google “donated” a million dollars to him and sent CEO Sundar Pichai to the inauguration. Pichai visited the president-elect at his Mar-A-Lago residence before Trump assumed office, and the company has also abandoned its diversity and inclusion staffing goals to align with Trump’s directives, in the explicit hope of preserving contracts with the U.S. federal government. Google All of these would be questionable moves for a company in the middle of the biggest antitrust case since AT&T in the 1980s. In 2025, it appears to be standard practice — Google wouldn’t be the only company that saw its legal troubles disappear after donating to a politician. But it hardly matters. The DOJ, now firmly under the thumb of the Trump regime, is still insisting that Google get rid of Chrome, but not Search or Android. Google’s attempts to curry favor seem to have failed, as the Republican-controlled Congress is also looking to get a few good licks in. We’re probably still months away from this getting a final, definitive resolution and the approval of a federal judge, with Google no doubt exhausting every official and unofficial avenue to stop it. It isn’t the triple disaster that the big G was dreading, but the Chrome browser is still an essential part of the company’s strategy. Proceeding under the assumption that Google will indeed be forced to give up Chrome, there are a lot of ways that I think this will be a positive for users like you and me. Google doesn’t deserve to keep Chrome Judge Mehta declared that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” That was already blindingly obvious to anyone who looked at a search market analysis. Google holds a 90 percent share today, with the closest alternative being Bing at under 4 percent, and that’s almost certainly due to Microsoft aggressively shoving it into every corner of Windows. Other competitors like Baidu and Yandex operate in regions where Google does not, China and Russia, respectively. But there’s an important distinction between a monopoly and an illegal monopoly, as determined by the Sherman Antitrust Act. If you sell the only EVA space suit for turtles, than you have a monopoly on turtle space suits…but that’s not illegal. Google, it has been determined, intentionally engineered and maintained its monopoly state. It used corporate partnerships and its status as the owner/maintainer of Chrome and Android to make it effectively impossible for a competitor to gain ground, and hid or destroyed evidence to make it harder for investigators and litigants to prove it. Michael Crider/Foundry All of this was in aid of keeping Google the de facto search on the internet, an invincible juggernaut of digital advertising, one of the most valuable and powerful technology companies on the planet. That’s what finally pushed it over the edge here. And it’s worth pointing out that these moves helped Google obtain a 65 percent share of the browser market and 70 percent of the mobile OS market, too. Again, none of this is shocking, and it’s not even necessarily concerning from the perspective of an individual user. It’s all but impossible to use the modern internet without interacting with companies like Google, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, and Microsoft, and having your personal info sold to a thousand different data brokers. But speaking as a computer and smartphone user, not a commenter on public policy and the governance of America’s technology sector, I have plenty of reason to take issue with Google’s handling of Chrome in particular. Chrome seems to have become fundamentally worse as a browser over the last few years. It’s always been a RAM hog compared to alternatives, but the speed that won so much praise when Google debuted it way back in 2008 seems to have slipped away — though that might also be because the web is just a lot heavier these days. Joel Lee / Foundry Google’s more deliberate choices aren’t without problems. It seems to have hamstrung ad-blocking extensions with the latest standard update, something that’s only just recently come into effect for most users. Google says that the Manifest V3 update is to improve performance, security, and privacy…but developers disagree, strongly. The creator of the popular uBlock Origin refused to hobble his extension, and created a “Lite” version rather than comply. I won’t say that Google is lying…but the idea that one of the biggest advertising companies on the planet intentionally made a software design choice that makes blocking advertising harder on the biggest browser would hardly be surprising. After all, it’s been more than ten years since Google released Chrome for Android, and it still doesn’t support third-party extensions, something that both the desktop version and other Android browsers can do. I wonder why…when one of the first extensions most users load up is some kind of ad blocker. Google has made plenty of other choices that give users like me reason to complain, like mismanaging YouTube, making Google Search worse and worse, and pushing questionably necessary “AI” into all aspects of its business. Its hoarding (and sharing) of personal data is a cornerstone of today’s web advertising. In short, the idea of Google being divorced from Chrome and the browser market isn’t one that brings a tear to my eye, no matter how we get there. We’re in for some chaos That being said, I’d be a fool if I didn’t foresee a lot of problems coming out of a breakup. Chrome isn’t just Chrome, and hasn’t been for a long time. Whatever its sins, Google has done tons of open source browser development via the Chromium project. Chromium now forms the code base of most of its Chrome’s alternatives, including Microsoft’s Edge, Opera, and my own new browser bestie, Vivaldi. In fact, of the browsers with more than 1 percent of the market, only Firefox and Apple’s Safari are not based on Chromium. Chromium is also the basis of ChromeOS, Google’s alternative to Windows. While it’s nowhere near as successful as Android, Chromebooks form a substantial chunk of the market, particularly for entry-level machines and large-volume sales to schools and other big, centralized organizations. ChromeOS is still well behind MacOS, even Linux (and I think the Steam Deck is a big part of that), but without it a lot of people would be trying to run Windows on laptops that really can’t handle it. CC Photo Labs / Shutterstock.com So yeah, if Chrome and Chromium disappeared tomorrow, we’d be in for a big shakeup in the browser space and beyond. Exactly what’s going to happen to Chromium (and by extension, ChromeOS and Chromebooks) might be the biggest variable in this situation. It seems unlikely that Google will continue to pour millions and millions of dollars into the development of an open source platform for which it is no longer the primary benefactor. Maybe it’ll switch Chromebooks over to Android for a safe haven, and let some other company take over Chromium. That would still hurt a lot for Google, and cause headaches for every other browser developer. But it wouldn’t be the end of the world…and we’d see some competition that’s been sorely lacking in this space for over a decade. But which company would be the first in line to take over Chrome? That’s not hard to guess. A big chance for Microsoft Microsoft not only has a lot of history as both a backbone of the internet and a browser developer, it has the deep pockets necessary to take over a business as big and unwieldy as Chrome. And I’m betting Microsoft would absolutely leap at the chance to do it — after all, it’s been not-quite-forcing Windows users to deal with Edge for years. Imagine the branding coup that would be “Microsoft Chrome” pre-installed on every new Windows laptop. If nothing else, it would save Microsoft the trouble of faking those Bing search results and support pages. Speaking of Bing, Microsoft would be in a position to use (or abuse, depending on whom you ask) Chrome to grow Bing search, using some of the same techniques that Google has with a browser in its back pocket. Microsoft, Universal Pictures If you’re thinking, “Hey, are you saying Microsoft would try to do the same thing that got Google in so much trouble for creating a monopoly?” Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And Microsoft is hardly a newcomer when it comes to monopoly abuse, or even being naughty with browser integration. But with a tiny fraction of the search and browser market in 2025, Microsoft has a certain license to try and make up for the advantage Google has been enjoying for the better part of two decades. It would be, if not exactly fair, then at least somewhat balanced. As much as I’d love for an independent like Opera or Firefox to come out on top of this, that just isn’t the world we live in. And Microsoft would certainly take a gamble on regulatory trouble 20 years from now, if it meant getting a big chunk of Google’s browser, search, and advertising business today. Microsoft could certainly use an edge at the moment. It’s in no danger of being dethroned as the desktop operating system leader…but that lead is looking a lot shakier than it used to. Not only are the peasants revolting when it comes to being forced onto Windows 11, Linux is gaining as a realistic alternative thanks to support from Valve’s SteamOS. That would hit Windows right in its comfy spot as the de facto home of PC gaming, to say nothing of a broader shift towards mobile hardware and OS-agnostic web tools. Microsoft is merely the most likely candidate for a new owner of Chrome, according to my reckoning. Other tech giants — Apple, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, you know, all the other companies that would love to make those same monopoly swings — could win a bidding war. Or Google could simply shut down Chrome, if that’s an option, and take a big hit to its bottom line simply to deny its competition that opportunity. If that happens, some other browser (very likely a continuation or fork of Chromium) will take its place. And that’s fine by me. Read...

ASUS has unveiled the ultra-light Zenbook A14 in Australia and New Zealand, boasting revolutionary AI technology and a remarkable 32-hour battery life. Read...

New radar technology is making it easier - and cheaper - for hydrologists and Civil Defence to keep an eye on rivers around the West Coast and predict floods. Read...

The Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute partners with Hewlett Packard Enterprise to enhance cancer research with advanced storage technology. Read...