Tag Archives: editorial

The $599 MacBook Neo is Shaking Up the PC Industry: 6 Best Alternatives

Posted on by

Apple has never really done “affordable.” For decades, the cheapest way into the Mac ecosystem meant spending at least $999, and that was considered a deal. So when the company announced the MacBook Neo at $599, or $499 for students and educators, the reaction wasn’t just surprise. It was something closer to disbelief. This is the same Apple that charges $19 for a polishing cloth, and it just put a laptop on the shelf for less than most people’s monthly rent.

It’s not an accident or a moment of generosity. The MacBook Neo is a deliberate move into a market segment Apple has ignored for years: the budget laptop buyer. Students, first-time Mac users, families on tighter budgets. These are the people who’ve been defaulting to Chromebooks and cheap Windows machines, not because they preferred them, but because a Mac was simply out of reach. Apple just changed that math, and the PC industry is already scrambling to respond.

Designer: Apple

More Than a Fresh Coat of Paint

The Neo comes in four colors: blush, indigo, silver, and a sharp citrus yellow. The colors even extend to the Magic Keyboard in lighter shades and matching wallpapers, which is a level of cohesion you genuinely don’t see at this price point in Windows hardware. The aluminum enclosure weighs 2.7 pounds, and the 13-inch Liquid Retina display runs at 2408-by-1506 resolution with 500 nits of brightness, outpacing most competing devices in this segment by a considerable margin. Combine that with up to 16 hours of battery life, and the headline specs read like a mid-range laptop, not an entry-level one.

The chip underneath all of that is the A18 Pro, the same processor that powered the iPhone 16 Pro in 2024. That’s where the picture gets a bit more nuanced. It’s definitely more than enough for web browsing, document editing, streaming, casual photo editing, and AI tasks. What it isn’t is a creative workstation. This machine is fanless, silent, and cool-running, but it isn’t going to replace even a MacBook Air for serious video work or sustained heavy computation. Apple has been honest about that positioning, and the spec sheet backs it up.

There are also a few caveats beyond the silicon. There’s no backlit keyboard on the base $599 model, which feels like an odd omission in 2026. Fast charging isn’t supported either, with only a 20W USB-C adapter in the box. The connectivity is minimal: one USB 3 port (USB-C) and one USB 2 port (USB-C), the latter topping out at 480Mb/s, which is slow enough to matter if you regularly move large files. No Thunderbolt. No MagSafe. Touch ID is exclusive to the $699 model. These are deliberate subtractions, not oversights, designed to protect the MacBook Air’s value proposition while keeping the Neo’s cost down.

Road Once Traveled: Windows RT

Before getting too swept up in the novelty of the MacBook Neo, it’s worth remembering that the idea of an affordable, ARM-based portable computer aimed at everyday users isn’t new. Microsoft tried exactly this in 2012 with Windows RT, a version of Windows designed to run on ARM chips and released alongside the original Surface tablet. The pitch was appealing: a sleek, efficient, battery-friendly device that could handle the basics and connect to the broader Windows world.

The fact that it failed is pretty much part of history by now. The core problem wasn’t the hardware or even the concept: it was the software. Windows RT looked and felt like Windows but couldn’t run traditional Windows desktop applications. It was a watered-down experience wearing a familiar face, and users who expected full Windows compatibility found themselves stranded. The app ecosystem didn’t materialize fast enough, either, and Microsoft eventually abandoned the platform. Windows on ARM has continued in various forms since then, but it’s never fully shaken the baggage of that first failed attempt.

Apple, by contrast, spent years laying groundwork before making its ARM leap. When the company transitioned the entire Mac lineup to Apple Silicon starting in 2020, it didn’t ask developers to build for a new platform overnight. The Rosetta 2 translation layer handled legacy Intel apps smoothly from day one, and Apple had spent over a decade pushing developers toward modern APIs and frameworks through iOS. By the time the A18 Pro landed inside a $599 laptop, the software ecosystem was already there waiting for it. The MacBook Neo doesn’t run a restricted version of macOS. It runs full macOS Tahoe, with access to the same App Store and the same apps as any other Mac, and that is the fundamental difference that Microsoft was never able to bridge with Windows RT.

The best alternatives if the MacBook Neo isn’t for you

The MacBook Neo sets a new standard for what a $600 laptop can look and feel like. That said, it’s not the right machine for everyone. If you’re committed to Windows, need more RAM, prefer a larger display, or simply aren’t ready to switch ecosystems, there are some solid alternatives worth considering in the same price range.

Acer Swift Go 14 (SFG14-73)

The Acer Swift Go 14 is one of the more compelling Windows options at this price point, running on an Intel Core Ultra 5 processor with integrated Intel Arc graphics, 8GB of RAM, and a 512GB SSD. That’s double the storage of the base Neo for roughly the same $600 price. The bigger draw is the display: a 14-inch OLED panel at 2880×1800 resolution, which is genuinely excellent for a laptop in this category and makes the Swift Go a strong pick for anyone who consumes a lot of media.

Designer: Acer

The trade-offs can’t be ignored, though. Battery life comes in around 8.5 hours, which is significantly shorter than the Neo’s 16-hour rating, and it weighs about 2.87 pounds in a larger chassis. It’s also a somewhat older-gen model, and that sweet price tag is only available in select retailers. If you want a bigger, sharper screen and don’t mind carrying a charger more often, the Swift Go earns a serious look.

Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 (15″, AMD)

Lenovo’s IdeaPad Slim 5 punches above its price with a more generous hardware loadout than the Neo: an AMD Ryzen 5 8540 processor, 8GB of RAM, and 512GB of storage, all available around the $500 price point. Lenovo also tends to make the best keyboards in the budget Windows space, and this one continues that tradition.

Designer: Lenovo

Where it falls short is predictable. The display is a 15-inch 1920×1200 IPS panel, which is perfectly functional but a noticeable step down from the Neo’s Liquid Retina screen in terms of sharpness and color. The battery life is what you’d expect from a Windows laptop. It won’t make you smile when you pull it out of a bag the way the Neo will, but if raw specs-per-dollar is the priority, the IdeaPad Slim 3 is a difficult machine to argue against.

HP OmniBook 5 (BA1056NR)

HP’s OmniBook 5 positions itself as an entry-level everyday laptop with pricing that frequently dips below $650, giving it a clear edge over the Neo in pure cost. It runs on modest Intel hardware, comes with a generous serving of 16GB of RAM, and is built primarily for email, web browsing, document editing, and video calls, the exact workload profile Apple says the Neo is designed for. Battery life is rated respectably, and the keyboard and trackpad are comfortable enough for extended daily use.

Designer: HP

The honest version of this recommendation comes with a caveat: the OmniBook 5 doesn’t compete with the Neo on display quality, build materials, or software longevity. The screen is a standard 16-inch 1080p IPS panel in a plastic chassis, and it runs Windows on Intel Core 5 silicon, which is a much older generation than today’s selection. It makes sense as a pure budget play if the price tag is still a stretch, but going in with eyes open about what those savings cost you is important.

Acer Chromebook Plus Spin 714 (CP714-1H-54UB)

The Acer Chromebook Plus Spin 714 is one of the more capable Chromebooks available around the $530 mark with a discount ($699 in full), and it brings a feature the Neo completely lacks: a touchscreen. Running on an Intel Core Ultra 5 with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, it matches the Neo’s base memory and storage configuration while adding 2-in-1 convertibility and a 14-inch IPS display at 1920×1200. For students, especially, the tent and tablet modes open up use cases that a standard clamshell laptop can’t cover.

Designer: Acer

The limitations are ChromeOS itself, which has narrowed the gap with full desktop operating systems considerably but still trails macOS and Windows for professional app compatibility. Battery life is advertised to be around 10 hours, shorter than the Neo but solid for a school day. At 3.21 lbs, it’s heavier and physically larger, and the display is a step behind the Neo in resolution and color quality. For someone already in the Google ecosystem, though, this is the sharpest Chromebook rival to the Neo in this price window.

Lenovo Chromebook Plus 14 (ChromeOS)

Lenovo’s Chromebook Plus 14 is the premium option in the ChromeOS space, and its headline feature is the display: a 14-inch 1920×1200 OLED panel with touchscreen support at a price of $749. For a Chromebook, that’s genuinely unusual hardware, and the screen quality puts it ahead of most of the Windows competition in this tier. It also supports Wi-Fi 7, runs on an Arm-based MediaTek Kompanio Ultra 910 chip with 16GB of RAM, and offers a build quality noticeably above the typical Chromebook standard.

Designer: Lenovo

The case for it over the Neo comes down to ecosystem preference. If Google Docs, YouTube, and Android apps cover your workflow, the Chromebook Plus 14 delivers a premium screen and a refined experience for less money than a MacBook Air. If you need desktop-class software, the ceiling becomes apparent quickly. ChromeOS has matured, but it still hits walls that macOS doesn’t. This is the Chromebook that makes you reconsider the category, not the one that makes you forget its limitations entirely.

Refurbished MacBook Air M1

It feels slightly odd to list an older Mac as an alternative to a newer Mac, but the refurbished MacBook Air M1 is worth the mention. Available through Apple’s certified refurbished store, third-party retailers, and resellers, the M1 Air frequently surfaces in the $600 to $700 range and represents a considerable step up from the Neo in several areas. The M1 chip is more capable than the A18 Pro for sustained workloads, it has MagSafe-era USB-C with Thunderbolt support, and it comes with 8 to 16GB of unified memory in the base configuration with a more mature, battle-tested macOS optimization story.

The catch is that you’re buying hardware from 2020, and Apple’s software support timeline means the M1 will eventually age out of macOS updates before a Neo purchased today will. For someone who wants macOS and a bit more headroom without stepping up to the $1,099 MacBook Air M5, the refurbished M1 is a pragmatic option rather than an inspired one. It gets the job done, but it doesn’t have the new colors, and the MacBook Neo, despite its compromises, is the more forward-looking machine.

Wake-up call

Affordable Windows laptops and Chromebooks have never been in short supply. The problem has always been that most of them require accepting significant compromises: dim displays, plastic chassis that creak, battery life that barely lasts a workday, or chips so underpowered that the experience degrades within a year of purchase. Many of the more appealing options in this segment come from lesser-known manufacturers, which brings its own concerns around software support and build reliability over time.

What the MacBook Neo does is reframe the question the PC industry has been comfortable not asking. ARM-based Windows laptops have existed for years, and the Snapdragon X series has made genuine progress, but Windows on ARM still hasn’t found the cultural moment that would turn it into a mainstream category. The Neo’s arrival and the reaction to it suggest that the market for a well-made, genuinely affordable computer aimed at students and everyday users is larger than the industry has been willing to address seriously. Apple just walked in and asked whether cheap and simple was enough, or whether those buyers might actually want something better.

The post The $599 MacBook Neo is Shaking Up the PC Industry: 6 Best Alternatives first appeared on Yanko Design.

Apple Finally Rounded the MacBook’s Corners After 18 Years

Posted on by

For about 18 years, every aluminum MacBook has looked more or less the same. Silver. Angular. Quietly serious. There’s nothing wrong with that. Apple’s unibody aluminum design, introduced in October 2008 and carved from a single block of metal, was genuinely elegant and set the template for an entire industry. But it also retired something along the way: the idea that a Mac laptop could feel chosen rather than just defaulted to.

The MacBook Neo, announced March 4 and starting at just $599, is the first real crack in that template. It comes in four colors (blush, indigo, silver, and a yellow-green called citrus) with enclosure corners that are noticeably softer than any aluminum Mac in recent memory. Whether that adds up to a proper design statement or just smart positioning is worth thinking through.

Designer: Apple

What happened to Apple’s color confidence

iBook G3 Clamshell (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Apple’s fondness for color didn’t always live inside an iPhone. The iBook G3, launched in 1999, came in tangerine and blueberry, and later in indigo and key lime. It was rounded, slightly toy-like, and completely unapologetic about being a consumer product. When the aluminum unibody arrived in 2008, Apple traded that warmth for precision machining and sharp rectilinear edges. Right call for the MacBook Pro. Default for everything else, apparently, for nearly two decades.

The result was a color drought in aluminum Mac laptops that has lasted until now. Silver, space gray, midnight, starlight: all variations on the same mood of professional restraint. The Neo’s citrus and blush aren’t just options on a spec page. They’re a quiet admission that not every laptop buyer wants a device that looks like it belongs in a boardroom. For Apple, that’s actually not a small thing to say at the product level.

Two different stories about corners

M1 MacBook Pro (2021)

There’s a distinction worth making here, because “rounded corners” gets used loosely when describing the Neo. MacBook displays have had rounded screen corners since 2021, which is a display-level detail and nothing new. What’s different on the Neo is the chassis itself. The physical aluminum enclosure is softer at the edges and corners than any aluminum Mac before it, and Apple’s own press materials describe “soft, rounded corners” specifically in terms of how the device feels to hold and carry.

That’s a real shift in the design language. The 2008 unibody was celebrated for machined sharpness, corners you could feel were engineered. The Neo softens that deliberately. It’s not a revival of the iBook, and it’s not trying to be, but the instinct is similar: a consumer Mac that feels a little more like it belongs to you. The notch is also gone, making this the first notchless MacBook since 2020, which quietly tidies up the one thing that made recent Airs feel slightly unfinished.

The repairability angle is actually a design story too

One thing that got a little buried under the color conversation: the Neo is the most repairable Mac laptop in years, and that’s partly a design decision worth noting. Teardowns showed how the whole machine was disassembled in just a few minutes using standard Torx screws throughout. No tape, no adhesive, anywhere inside. That’s a first for a modern Mac. The USB-C ports, speakers, and headphone jack are all modular. The keyboard can be replaced on its own, without swapping the entire top case, which on the MacBook Air currently costs over $370 in parts.

The internal simplicity isn’t accidental. The A18 Pro chip runs so efficiently that the Neo needs no fan at all, which removes a whole layer of thermal engineering that usually clutters a laptop’s interior. The result is a cleaner, more logical internal layout. Whether Apple arrived here from genuine design philosophy or from regulatory pressure (the EU’s right-to-repair push has been building for years) is an open question, but the outcome is real either way.

What it doesn’t fix, and what might come next

It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, of course. The base model has 8GB of non-upgradable RAM, one USB-C port runs at USB 2.0 speeds, and there’s no backlit keyboard. These are calculated trade-offs for the price point, not mistakes, but they matter depending on what you actually need the machine for. And repairability, for all the justified enthusiasm, is still partial: the RAM and storage are fixed at purchase, just like every other current Mac.

Still, the Neo feels like Apple designing for a specific person it had previously ignored: someone who was never going to spend $1,000 on a MacBook Air and wasn’t particularly well served by anything else Apple made. The color, the softer form, the price, the clean internals, all of it points at the same person. What’s genuinely interesting is whether any of this travels upmarket. If a future MacBook Air gets a color story this confident, the Neo might end up looking less like an entry-level product and more like Apple quietly figuring out what comes next.

The post Apple Finally Rounded the MacBook’s Corners After 18 Years first appeared on Yanko Design.

iPhone 20 in 2027: All-Glass, Buttonless, and Highly Unlikely

Posted on by

The iPhone turns 20 in 2027, and Apple apparently wants to throw a party that people will remember. Sources believe that the company is targeting a radical redesign for what will likely be called the iPhone 20, skipping “iPhone 19” the same way it jumped directly to the iPhone X back in 2017. More than just a naming trick, it came with the full-screen OLED design, Face ID, and the removal of the home button, a move that felt genuinely shocking at the time. The expectation building around the iPhone 20 is that history is supposed to repeat itself, only bigger.

The appetite is clearly there. Interest in bold Apple hardware has been riding high on the back of iPhone Fold rumors, and the search interest in “iPhone 20 design” has shot up by over 3,100% year-over-year. People are hungry for a leap, not an incremental shuffle. What Apple is reportedly planning, an all-glass unibody with no physical buttons and no visible cutouts anywhere on the device, is exactly the kind of leap that generates excitement. Whether it generates anything more than that is a genuinely open question.

Images courtesy of: AppleTrack

iPhone X (2017)

What it isn’t: an all-screen phone

Before the imagination runs completely wild, it helps to be specific about what “all-glass” is not. This is not a Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha situation, where the display wraps entirely around the phone like a very expensive, very fragile bracelet. That concept, for all its visual drama, would introduce a cascade of problems: iOS and most apps are built on the assumption that the back of a phone is inert. Making the entire surface interactive requires a fundamental rethinking of how software handles accidental input, palm rejection, and basic navigation, none of which Apple appears to be pursuing here.

Designer: Xiaomi

The more useful comparison is the Vivo APEX from 2019, a concept phone that was genuinely all-glass and buttonless without wrapping the display around the chassis. The APEX had no physical buttons, no headphone jack, no visible ports, and shockingly, no front camera. It was definitely a striking object. It also never made it to retail, because striking objects and reliable everyday devices are not always the same thing.

Designer: vivo

What the rumors are actually saying

The picture assembled from various sources is fairly consistent in its broad strokes. The iPhone 20 is expected to arrive with a four-sided bending OLED display that curves around all edges, a fully glass chassis with no metal frame visible from the outside, camera lenses flush against the glass back with no raised rings or seams, and an under-display front camera with Face ID sensors also moved beneath the glass. Physical buttons disappear entirely, replaced by what Apple has internally codenamed “Project Bongo,” localized haptic zones that simulate a press through piezoelectric ceramics rather than a mechanical click.

Images courtesy of: AppleTrack

Apple has been laying this groundwork for years, whether deliberately or not. MagSafe removed the last port most people used regularly. The solid-state home button on the iPhone 7 trained a generation of users to accept a simulated click as the real thing. Touch ID lived in that fake button for years before Face ID made it irrelevant. Project Bongo itself has been in development since 2021, with the haptic button solution reportedly completing functional verification for the iPhone 20 last October. The staged rollout has already begun: under-display Face ID is expected to debut on the iPhone 18 Pro in 2026, a year before the full transformation arrives.

Why Apple might actually want this

The engineering case for an all-glass, buttonless phone is stronger than it might first appear, and it goes well beyond aesthetics. Glass transmits radio frequencies with far less attenuation than metal, which means that a fully glass chassis removes the need for antenna break lines, those small plastic interruptions visible on metal-framed iPhones. For 5G mmWave frequencies, which are particularly vulnerable to obstruction, that is a meaningful structural advantage, not a cosmetic one.

Physical buttons are also apertures, meaning every button cutout is a potential entry point for water, dust, and debris, not to mention a structural point of weakness. Solid-state haptic zones flush with a continuous glass surface create a fully sealed perimeter by default. And without springs, electrical contacts, or moving parts, the mechanical failure modes that eventually wear out every physical button simply do not apply. There is also a software dimension: a haptic surface can be reprogrammed. The same zone that acts as a volume button in one context can behave differently in a camera app, or respond to a half-press the way a DSLR shutter does. That interaction vocabulary does not exist on a physical button.

Images courtesy of: AppleTrack

The design coherence argument is worth taking seriously, too. iOS 26 introduced the Liquid Glass UI at WWDC 2025, with translucent menus, frosted panes, and depth-layered interfaces that read as software built to live inside a glass object. If the hardware catches up, the iPhone 20 would be the first Apple device where the material logic of the shell and the interface are genuinely continuous, rather than one imitating the other.

Why Apple will definitely not do it, at least not yet

The skepticism case is longer and, in several places, harder to argue around. Start with the glass itself. No glass smartphone has survived all kinds of real-world accidents unscathed, including the iPhone 16 Pro Max with Ceramic Shield 2. The current metal frame does real structural work; it absorbs and distributes impact energy in ways that glass cannot. A four-sided curved display that wraps around what used to be the frame zone eliminates that crumple zone entirely.

Thermal management is a less visible but equally serious issue. Aluminum conducts heat significantly better than glass. The metal frame in current iPhones is part of the thermal pathway, moving heat from the logic board outward. Glass is a poor conductor and a poor radiator, and with Apple Intelligence pushing sustained on-device AI inference, the thermal load is growing, not shrinking. Apple would need expanded vapor chambers or novel heat-bridge materials to compensate, none of which have been confirmed.

Then there is the under-display camera. Samsung introduced UDC technology with the Galaxy Z Fold3 in 2021 and used it through the Fold6. Image quality was consistently criticized across all four generations, and Samsung is now reportedly abandoning it for future foldables due to persistent optical and cost challenges. Apple is reportedly moving in the opposite direction, but with a twist. It might use the under-display camera primarily for Face ID’s infrared sensors rather than the selfie camera, which sidesteps the worst degradation but does not resolve long-term selfie quality under glass.

Designer: Samsung

Accessibility is a concern that gets less coverage than drop tests, but it definitely deserves more. Blind and visually impaired users rely on physically locatable controls as navigational anchors, such as the raised profile of a button. Flush haptic zones remove that landmark. There is also the “dead device” recovery problem: a bricked iPhone requires holding a specific physical button combination to enter recovery mode. Whether solid-state haptic buttons can operate at the firmware level, before iOS loads, has not been confirmed. Case and accessory compatibility adds another layer; a wraparound display that curves into what is currently the frame zone fundamentally changes how a protective case grips the device, since the element that used to grip the frame now grips the screen.

The human factor is harder to engineer than the glass

The technology story surrounding the iPhone 20 is genuinely fascinating, and some of it will almost certainly happen. Under-display Face ID on the iPhone 18 Pro is close enough to be treated as confirmed. The full vision, no buttons, no cutouts, glass everywhere, is a different question. Manufacturing challenge is described as “extraordinarily complex,” component manufacturers are on the fence, and the expected price point will likely exceed the current Pro Max tier. Those are not the conditions under which Apple tends to ship a complete reimagining all at once.

But the technical hurdles might not be the hardest part. People have strong, specific feelings about physical buttons in ways they do not always articulate until the buttons are gone. The haptic home button on the iPhone 7 worked well enough that most users stopped noticing it within weeks. Extending that same illusion across every tactile control point on the device, in cold weather, through a case, while the phone is vibrating with an incoming call, and across several years of daily use, is a different challenge than a single button in a fixed location. Whether that feels like liberation or a slow-building frustration might depend less on the engineering and more on the person holding it.

Images courtesy of: AppleTrack

The post iPhone 20 in 2027: All-Glass, Buttonless, and Highly Unlikely first appeared on Yanko Design.

Microsoft Broke the Only Thing That Actually Mattered

Posted on by

Any tech nerd knows the unspoken contract that comes with being the only tech-literate person in the family. You get texts when someone’s laptop is slow, called over during the holidays to fix the router, and consulted every eighteen months when someone needs a new phone or computer. For years, the laptop question had a clean, confident answer: a Windows machine. Cheap entry points, massive software compatibility, games that actually run, no walled gardens, no ecosystem hostage situations, and enough flexibility that even a non-technical person could figure out the basics without feeling like they’d violated a terms of service agreement. But the last time someone asked me what laptop to get, I paused. For a good minute I asked myself, should I even recommend Windows anymore?

That pause is new, and it carries weight that no benchmark score or spec sheet can explain. The designated family tech person has historically been one of the most reliable organic distribution channels Windows ever had, recommending the same platform generation after generation because it worked, it was accessible, and there was nothing obviously better for normal people at a reasonable price. When that person hesitates, the platform has a problem. Microsoft built an empire on being the obvious, low-friction answer to the laptop question, and somewhere between Windows 10 and the Copilot era, they stopped protecting that position. And with Apple dropping a $599 MacBook just last week, that position seems even more in danger.

2024 CrowdStrike Outage

The OS that holds civilization together

Windows runs somewhere between 72 and 73 percent of the world’s desktops, and while that’s an impressive monopoly, it completely ignores the critical systems where Windows is actually even more prevalent and essential. Hospital admission systems, ATM networks, military command infrastructure, government offices, court systems, school networks, and banking operations across virtually every country on earth run on Windows. These institutions did not choose Windows out of preference; they are locked in through decades of infrastructure investment, software dependencies, and training costs that make switching systemically impractical at scale. The July 2024 CrowdStrike incident put a specific number on what this dependency looks like under pressure: one faulty content update to a single Windows security tool simultaneously bricked approximately 8.5 million machines, grounded over 8,500 flights globally, knocked hospital systems offline across multiple countries, and disabled 911 call centers across several US states. One third-party software layer, one bad update, and the operational skeleton of modern civic life visibly buckled.

That is the platform Microsoft has been treating as a vehicle for AI feature experiments. Recall, the AI tool Microsoft attempted to ship as part of Windows 11, worked by screenshotting the user’s screen every few seconds and storing those images locally to build a searchable timeline of everything they had ever done on the machine. Security researchers flagged it almost immediately as a catastrophic privacy liability: a permanent, silent, queryable record of every document, message, and webpage the screen had ever displayed. Microsoft paused the rollout after a fierce public backlash, but the revealing fact is that Recall cleared internal review in the first place. The teams approving that feature were not thinking about hospital clerks processing patient records, lawyers working with privileged communications, or government employees handling sensitive data. They were building a keynote demo.

The market is responding accordingly

Microsoft ended official Windows 10 support in October 2025, cutting off security patches for what was still the most widely used version of the OS. Months of upgrade campaigns, notification banners, and every available form of institutional pressure followed. The result: as of December 2025, Windows 10 sits at 44.68% market share and actually gained users after support ended, while Windows 11 dropped from 55.18% in October to 50.73% in December, shedding over four percentage points in two months while the officially dead OS clawed back ground. People are choosing to run a security-vulnerable, unsupported operating system rather than upgrade to the one Microsoft actively maintains, and that is not technophobia or inertia. It is a calculated judgment, made by millions of users independently, that the known risks of the old version beat the unknown risks of moving to the new one.

The TPM 2.0 hardware requirement blocked installation on millions of perfectly functional machines with no meaningful performance justification for everyday users, which meant the upgrade conversation started with resentment before it ever got to features. First-boot setup funnels new users toward a Microsoft account, with the offline bypass buried past the point where most non-technical people will ever find it. OneDrive integration sits deep enough in the OS that users regularly discover their Desktop files have been syncing to the cloud without understanding when or how they agreed to that. A fresh Windows 11 install in 2026 ships with TikTok, Instagram, Disney+, and a collection of Microsoft’s own unfinished apps pre-pinned to the Start menu, none of them arriving with any user consent. Copilot, which no consumer demand survey had identified as a priority, now appears in the OS sidebar, the taskbar, and since 2024, as a dedicated hardware key on new laptops, occupying real estate where a key with actual utility used to live.

Running alongside all of that is a separate update quality crisis that has been building its own track record. A January 2026 security update caused boot failures on certain Windows 11 machines, with Microsoft eventually tracing the issue to a botched December 2025 update that had left affected devices in what they diplomatically described as an “improper state.” An October 2025 security update broke VPN networking for enterprise users running OpenVPN and Cisco Secure Client, a bug that carried through the December patch cycle without a clean resolution. Security updates, the category Microsoft explicitly tells users they cannot afford to skip, became a threat to system stability in their own right. When the patch and the problem are indistinguishable from each other, the trust issue has moved well past inconvenience.

A modified version of a comic by Manu Cornet

Nadella is a great CEO. Just not for desktop operating systems.

Satya Nadella took Microsoft’s stock from roughly $35 in 2014 to over $400 at its peak, killed the Nokia disaster before it could fully metastasize, repositioned the entire company around cloud infrastructure, and placed an early bet on OpenAI when AI was still considered expensive academic theater. Azure’s consistent 30%-plus year-over-year growth commands complete executive attention and pulls the best engineering talent in the building toward it like gravity. By any honest standard corporate metric, Nadella’s Microsoft is a legitimate turnaround story, and the shareholder returns are not fabricated. But Nadella is a cloud and enterprise person at his core, and consumer Windows is a mature product in a saturated market, which in corporate strategy language translates cleanly to “managed asset.” The product that generates excitement gets the architects and the product visionaries; the one that just needs to keep working gets whoever is left after that allocation is done.

Paul Thurrott, who has covered Microsoft longer than most of the current Windows team has worked there, documented what that organizational reality looks like in practice. He wrote that Microsoft “relegated Windows to a backwater world led by B-teamers as the brightest minds at the company moved onto more lucrative career opportunities in Azure and AI.” That is an organizational autopsy, not editorial frustration, and it explains the product trajectory better than any feature changelog can. The talent followed the money and the excitement, and what remained shipped a redesigned Start menu nobody requested, a Copilot key nobody asked for, and a feature that the security community identified as dangerous within hours of its public announcement. The B-team does not ship bad decisions out of malice; they ship them because nobody senior enough to stop them is paying attention.

This pattern has a name

Nadella did not invent this behavioral tendency; it recurs reliably enough across modern tech to qualify as its own CEO archetype. Elon Musk built Tesla into the most culturally significant car company on earth, then spent the better part of two years fixated on Twitter, rebranding it to X, eliminating roughly 80% of staff, and torching advertiser relationships that took years to build, while Tesla’s stock dropped roughly 40% in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Now, he’s discontinued two Tesla models permanently while focusing efforts on an extremely polarizing AI chatbot. Mark Zuckerberg committed somewhere between $40 and $50 billion to the metaverse between 2021 and 2023, a virtual world that peaked at approximately 300,000 daily active users on Meta Horizon Worlds, before quietly pivoting to AI and becoming a public figure most associated with jiu-jitsu tournaments. The pattern is consistent enough to have a shape: a CEO builds something genuinely dominant, gets pulled toward the next big technological narrative, and hands the original product to the maintenance crew while energy and capital chase the new story. The difference with Nadella is the scale of what he handed off.

What separates his case from Musk and Zuckerberg is that he did not get distracted from Windows. He consciously stripped it for parts. Azure and AI received the budget, the senior talent pipeline, and the executive attention. Windows received the downstream output of that redistribution: mandatory AI integrations nobody requested, hardware specifications designed around Microsoft’s AI keynote roadmap rather than user needs, and a product direction driven more by investor narrative than by any user research that has ever been made public. The ordinary people buying $400 laptops are absorbing the cost of that sacrifice. The shareholders benefiting from Azure’s quarterly growth numbers are not.

Enshittification, documented

Cory Doctorow’s enshittification framework describes a platform lifecycle: start good for users, degrade toward serving business partners, then degrade further to extract maximum value for shareholders at everyone else’s expense. Windows 11 maps cleanly onto the third stage. The Start menu was rebuilt from scratch for the Windows 11 launch, stripping out Live Tiles that users had configured over years and replacing them with a static grid that is less functional and harder to customize, with no usability gain justifying the regression. Drag-and-drop onto taskbar applications was removed entirely at launch and only partially restored after months of sustained community pressure. Windows 11 originally shipped without the ability to right-click the taskbar to open Task Manager, a function that had existed since Windows NT 4.0 in 1996, and whose removal was not a redesign decision so much as evidence that nobody tested the product against the habits of actual users.

Control Panel, introduced in 1985, and the modern Settings app, first introduced in 2012 with Windows 8, still coexist in parallel inside Windows 11 in 2026. Basic system configuration requires jumping between both because neither is complete on its own, and the logic governing which settings live in which interface has never been consistently explained or resolved. Thirteen years of two competing tools sharing the same OS, and Microsoft never cared enough about the end-user experience to finish the job. This is not a legacy oversight or a technical debt problem that nobody knows how to solve. It is a choice, visible in its incompleteness, that reveals how little Windows product ownership has mattered to anyone with the authority to demand better.

Where this leaves ordinary people

Windows remains the most practical OS for most consumers, and that matters because it means there is no clean exit for the people being failed by it. MacOS is polished and stable but paternalistic by design: Apple creates deliberate friction around installing software from outside its ecosystem, the interface carries a genuine learning curve for anyone transitioning from Windows, and a MacBook Air M4 starts at $1,099 against a capable Windows laptop at around $400. Sure you can buy the $599 MacBook Neo too, but it’s genuinely less of a laptop and more of a netbook. The price difference between a regular MacBook and a similarly spec’d Windows laptop is not marginal in most of the world, particularly in the markets where Windows adoption is highest. Linux is genuinely improving year over year and deserves acknowledgment for it, but recommending Ubuntu to a non-technical family member invites more trouble than relief. The alternatives exist, but they serve a different user than the one who has to ask for a laptop recommendation.

A regular person can still buy an affordable Windows machine, install whatever software they want, run games across a hardware range that nothing else matches, plug in any peripheral without a compatibility interrogation, and operate without being treated as a security risk for opening a file from outside a curated store. Microsoft is eroding that value proposition methodically, one forced integration at a time, but the erosion has not yet reached full collapse. As of early 2026, reporting suggests Microsoft is pulling back from the AI-everywhere approach in Windows and refocusing on core stability, with Paul Thurrott describing the shift as “something happened,” which from a journalist who has spent years documenting Windows’ decline with the exhausted precision of someone watching a building settle incorrectly reads as cautious acknowledgment rather than optimism. Whether that represents genuine reprioritization or noise management ahead of a Windows 12 announcement nobody has officially confirmed is the question worth watching.

Rebuilding trust after Recall, after a year of destabilizing updates, after years of treating the world’s most consequential operating system as a demo environment for products the market never asked for, takes considerably longer than a few stable patches and a tonal reset in engineering blog posts. The millions of people still on Windows 10, knowingly running an unsupported OS past its expiration date, made a rational call: the known risks of yesterday’s software beat the unpredictable risks of an OS whose roadmap is driven by whatever Microsoft needs to show investors next quarter. That is not the normal frustration cycle where users grumble and eventually upgrade. It is a trust deficit built through years of consistent bad decisions, and a few good patch cycles will not close it. The easiest tech recommendation in the world has become a pause, and the people responsible for that pause are too deep in Azure dashboards to understand what it actually costs.

The post Microsoft Broke the Only Thing That Actually Mattered first appeared on Yanko Design.

Microsoft Broke the Only Thing That Actually Mattered

Posted on by

Any tech nerd knows the unspoken contract that comes with being the only tech-literate person in the family. You get texts when someone’s laptop is slow, called over during the holidays to fix the router, and consulted every eighteen months when someone needs a new phone or computer. For years, the laptop question had a clean, confident answer: a Windows machine. Cheap entry points, massive software compatibility, games that actually run, no walled gardens, no ecosystem hostage situations, and enough flexibility that even a non-technical person could figure out the basics without feeling like they’d violated a terms of service agreement. But the last time someone asked me what laptop to get, I paused. For a good minute I asked myself, should I even recommend Windows anymore?

That pause is new, and it carries weight that no benchmark score or spec sheet can explain. The designated family tech person has historically been one of the most reliable organic distribution channels Windows ever had, recommending the same platform generation after generation because it worked, it was accessible, and there was nothing obviously better for normal people at a reasonable price. When that person hesitates, the platform has a problem. Microsoft built an empire on being the obvious, low-friction answer to the laptop question, and somewhere between Windows 10 and the Copilot era, they stopped protecting that position. And with Apple dropping a $599 MacBook just last week, that position seems even more in danger.

2024 CrowdStrike Outage

The OS that holds civilization together

Windows runs somewhere between 72 and 73 percent of the world’s desktops, and while that’s an impressive monopoly, it completely ignores the critical systems where Windows is actually even more prevalent and essential. Hospital admission systems, ATM networks, military command infrastructure, government offices, court systems, school networks, and banking operations across virtually every country on earth run on Windows. These institutions did not choose Windows out of preference; they are locked in through decades of infrastructure investment, software dependencies, and training costs that make switching systemically impractical at scale. The July 2024 CrowdStrike incident put a specific number on what this dependency looks like under pressure: one faulty content update to a single Windows security tool simultaneously bricked approximately 8.5 million machines, grounded over 8,500 flights globally, knocked hospital systems offline across multiple countries, and disabled 911 call centers across several US states. One third-party software layer, one bad update, and the operational skeleton of modern civic life visibly buckled.

That is the platform Microsoft has been treating as a vehicle for AI feature experiments. Recall, the AI tool Microsoft attempted to ship as part of Windows 11, worked by screenshotting the user’s screen every few seconds and storing those images locally to build a searchable timeline of everything they had ever done on the machine. Security researchers flagged it almost immediately as a catastrophic privacy liability: a permanent, silent, queryable record of every document, message, and webpage the screen had ever displayed. Microsoft paused the rollout after a fierce public backlash, but the revealing fact is that Recall cleared internal review in the first place. The teams approving that feature were not thinking about hospital clerks processing patient records, lawyers working with privileged communications, or government employees handling sensitive data. They were building a keynote demo.

The market is responding accordingly

Microsoft ended official Windows 10 support in October 2025, cutting off security patches for what was still the most widely used version of the OS. Months of upgrade campaigns, notification banners, and every available form of institutional pressure followed. The result: as of December 2025, Windows 10 sits at 44.68% market share and actually gained users after support ended, while Windows 11 dropped from 55.18% in October to 50.73% in December, shedding over four percentage points in two months while the officially dead OS clawed back ground. People are choosing to run a security-vulnerable, unsupported operating system rather than upgrade to the one Microsoft actively maintains, and that is not technophobia or inertia. It is a calculated judgment, made by millions of users independently, that the known risks of the old version beat the unknown risks of moving to the new one.

The TPM 2.0 hardware requirement blocked installation on millions of perfectly functional machines with no meaningful performance justification for everyday users, which meant the upgrade conversation started with resentment before it ever got to features. First-boot setup funnels new users toward a Microsoft account, with the offline bypass buried past the point where most non-technical people will ever find it. OneDrive integration sits deep enough in the OS that users regularly discover their Desktop files have been syncing to the cloud without understanding when or how they agreed to that. A fresh Windows 11 install in 2026 ships with TikTok, Instagram, Disney+, and a collection of Microsoft’s own unfinished apps pre-pinned to the Start menu, none of them arriving with any user consent. Copilot, which no consumer demand survey had identified as a priority, now appears in the OS sidebar, the taskbar, and since 2024, as a dedicated hardware key on new laptops, occupying real estate where a key with actual utility used to live.

Running alongside all of that is a separate update quality crisis that has been building its own track record. A January 2026 security update caused boot failures on certain Windows 11 machines, with Microsoft eventually tracing the issue to a botched December 2025 update that had left affected devices in what they diplomatically described as an “improper state.” An October 2025 security update broke VPN networking for enterprise users running OpenVPN and Cisco Secure Client, a bug that carried through the December patch cycle without a clean resolution. Security updates, the category Microsoft explicitly tells users they cannot afford to skip, became a threat to system stability in their own right. When the patch and the problem are indistinguishable from each other, the trust issue has moved well past inconvenience.

A modified version of a comic by Manu Cornet

Nadella is a great CEO. Just not for desktop operating systems.

Satya Nadella took Microsoft’s stock from roughly $35 in 2014 to over $400 at its peak, killed the Nokia disaster before it could fully metastasize, repositioned the entire company around cloud infrastructure, and placed an early bet on OpenAI when AI was still considered expensive academic theater. Azure’s consistent 30%-plus year-over-year growth commands complete executive attention and pulls the best engineering talent in the building toward it like gravity. By any honest standard corporate metric, Nadella’s Microsoft is a legitimate turnaround story, and the shareholder returns are not fabricated. But Nadella is a cloud and enterprise person at his core, and consumer Windows is a mature product in a saturated market, which in corporate strategy language translates cleanly to “managed asset.” The product that generates excitement gets the architects and the product visionaries; the one that just needs to keep working gets whoever is left after that allocation is done.

Paul Thurrott, who has covered Microsoft longer than most of the current Windows team has worked there, documented what that organizational reality looks like in practice. He wrote that Microsoft “relegated Windows to a backwater world led by B-teamers as the brightest minds at the company moved onto more lucrative career opportunities in Azure and AI.” That is an organizational autopsy, not editorial frustration, and it explains the product trajectory better than any feature changelog can. The talent followed the money and the excitement, and what remained shipped a redesigned Start menu nobody requested, a Copilot key nobody asked for, and a feature that the security community identified as dangerous within hours of its public announcement. The B-team does not ship bad decisions out of malice; they ship them because nobody senior enough to stop them is paying attention.

This pattern has a name

Nadella did not invent this behavioral tendency; it recurs reliably enough across modern tech to qualify as its own CEO archetype. Elon Musk built Tesla into the most culturally significant car company on earth, then spent the better part of two years fixated on Twitter, rebranding it to X, eliminating roughly 80% of staff, and torching advertiser relationships that took years to build, while Tesla’s stock dropped roughly 40% in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Now, he’s discontinued two Tesla models permanently while focusing efforts on an extremely polarizing AI chatbot. Mark Zuckerberg committed somewhere between $40 and $50 billion to the metaverse between 2021 and 2023, a virtual world that peaked at approximately 300,000 daily active users on Meta Horizon Worlds, before quietly pivoting to AI and becoming a public figure most associated with jiu-jitsu tournaments. The pattern is consistent enough to have a shape: a CEO builds something genuinely dominant, gets pulled toward the next big technological narrative, and hands the original product to the maintenance crew while energy and capital chase the new story. The difference with Nadella is the scale of what he handed off.

What separates his case from Musk and Zuckerberg is that he did not get distracted from Windows. He consciously stripped it for parts. Azure and AI received the budget, the senior talent pipeline, and the executive attention. Windows received the downstream output of that redistribution: mandatory AI integrations nobody requested, hardware specifications designed around Microsoft’s AI keynote roadmap rather than user needs, and a product direction driven more by investor narrative than by any user research that has ever been made public. The ordinary people buying $400 laptops are absorbing the cost of that sacrifice. The shareholders benefiting from Azure’s quarterly growth numbers are not.

Enshittification, documented

Cory Doctorow’s enshittification framework describes a platform lifecycle: start good for users, degrade toward serving business partners, then degrade further to extract maximum value for shareholders at everyone else’s expense. Windows 11 maps cleanly onto the third stage. The Start menu was rebuilt from scratch for the Windows 11 launch, stripping out Live Tiles that users had configured over years and replacing them with a static grid that is less functional and harder to customize, with no usability gain justifying the regression. Drag-and-drop onto taskbar applications was removed entirely at launch and only partially restored after months of sustained community pressure. Windows 11 originally shipped without the ability to right-click the taskbar to open Task Manager, a function that had existed since Windows NT 4.0 in 1996, and whose removal was not a redesign decision so much as evidence that nobody tested the product against the habits of actual users.

Control Panel, introduced in 1985, and the modern Settings app, first introduced in 2012 with Windows 8, still coexist in parallel inside Windows 11 in 2026. Basic system configuration requires jumping between both because neither is complete on its own, and the logic governing which settings live in which interface has never been consistently explained or resolved. Thirteen years of two competing tools sharing the same OS, and Microsoft never cared enough about the end-user experience to finish the job. This is not a legacy oversight or a technical debt problem that nobody knows how to solve. It is a choice, visible in its incompleteness, that reveals how little Windows product ownership has mattered to anyone with the authority to demand better.

Where this leaves ordinary people

Windows remains the most practical OS for most consumers, and that matters because it means there is no clean exit for the people being failed by it. MacOS is polished and stable but paternalistic by design: Apple creates deliberate friction around installing software from outside its ecosystem, the interface carries a genuine learning curve for anyone transitioning from Windows, and a MacBook Air M4 starts at $1,099 against a capable Windows laptop at around $400. Sure you can buy the $599 MacBook Neo too, but it’s genuinely less of a laptop and more of a netbook. The price difference between a regular MacBook and a similarly spec’d Windows laptop is not marginal in most of the world, particularly in the markets where Windows adoption is highest. Linux is genuinely improving year over year and deserves acknowledgment for it, but recommending Ubuntu to a non-technical family member invites more trouble than relief. The alternatives exist, but they serve a different user than the one who has to ask for a laptop recommendation.

A regular person can still buy an affordable Windows machine, install whatever software they want, run games across a hardware range that nothing else matches, plug in any peripheral without a compatibility interrogation, and operate without being treated as a security risk for opening a file from outside a curated store. Microsoft is eroding that value proposition methodically, one forced integration at a time, but the erosion has not yet reached full collapse. As of early 2026, reporting suggests Microsoft is pulling back from the AI-everywhere approach in Windows and refocusing on core stability, with Paul Thurrott describing the shift as “something happened,” which from a journalist who has spent years documenting Windows’ decline with the exhausted precision of someone watching a building settle incorrectly reads as cautious acknowledgment rather than optimism. Whether that represents genuine reprioritization or noise management ahead of a Windows 12 announcement nobody has officially confirmed is the question worth watching.

Rebuilding trust after Recall, after a year of destabilizing updates, after years of treating the world’s most consequential operating system as a demo environment for products the market never asked for, takes considerably longer than a few stable patches and a tonal reset in engineering blog posts. The millions of people still on Windows 10, knowingly running an unsupported OS past its expiration date, made a rational call: the known risks of yesterday’s software beat the unpredictable risks of an OS whose roadmap is driven by whatever Microsoft needs to show investors next quarter. That is not the normal frustration cycle where users grumble and eventually upgrade. It is a trust deficit built through years of consistent bad decisions, and a few good patch cycles will not close it. The easiest tech recommendation in the world has become a pause, and the people responsible for that pause are too deep in Azure dashboards to understand what it actually costs.

The post Microsoft Broke the Only Thing That Actually Mattered first appeared on Yanko Design.

Your Personal Free Netflix and other Top 5 Tech you Absolutely Need in 2026

Posted on by

Last year I put together a list of products everyone absolutely needed to own in 2025. It included basic stuff, AirTags, GaN chargers, and even some slightly complex gadgets like NAS devices to help you cut the cord on cloud storage subscriptions. This year’s list expands on the same philosophy from last year – make life easier, cheaper, and faster. Here are 5 pieces of tech you need to consider owning in 2026, they’re on the bleeding edge of tech now, but I assume will become mainstream in a decade. However, if you want to stay ahead of the curve, consider adopting them now!

The list is short but sweet – it includes AI recorders/notetakers, translator buds that do a way better job than the AirPods, personal AQI monitors, travel routers that make connecting to dubious airport and hotel WiFi networks much easier, and finally (my grand pick for 2026) a personal media server that helps you actually own movies instead of paying Netflix or Hulu or Paramount a monthly fee that they seem to increase every year without batting an eyelid.

1. AI Notetakers: Your Second Brain That Actually Shows Up

There is a very real advantage to having a dedicated AI notetaker that is not your phone. Phones are distraction machines; they are notifications, doomscrolling, unsolicited ads, and “sorry, I just need to reply to this Slack” all rolled into one. A device like Plaud Note, Comulytic, Mobvoi’s TicNote or a Notta‑powered recorder does one thing: it listens (and it remembers what it listens). You hit a physical button, drop it on the table, and forget about it. Later, the audio is cleaned up, transcribed, summarized, and tagged without you babysitting the process. That separation alone changes how you behave in meetings and interviews. You stop half‑typing notes while someone is talking and instead stay present, knowing you will get a clean transcript and a decent summary afterward.

The other big win is what happens after the recording. Tools like Plaud, Notta, and similar AI‑first platforms are not just dumping a raw audio file into your storage; they are turning it into something you can actually work with. Meetings become bullet‑point action lists, interviews turn into structured quotes you can drop into drafts, and keynotes morph into highlight reels and to‑do items. Compare that to your phone’s stock voice recorder, where everything is just “Recording 032.m4a” in a long, unlabeled list. No speaker separation, no smart search, no summaries, no automatic organization. Dedicated AI notetakers treat audio as input to a workflow, not a dead file. And once you have used one a few times for client calls or field interviews, going back to a generic phone app feels like going from a modern IDE back to Notepad.

2. Translator Earbuds: When You Actually Need To Talk To People

Apple adding Live Translation to AirPods is very on‑brand: take a niche idea, wrap it in a clean UI, and ship it as a feature most people will try once in a while. It is genuinely handy if you and the other person both live inside the Apple ecosystem, and you are somewhere with good connectivity. But at the end of the day, AirPods are music‑first earbuds that happen to do translation on the side. Brands like Vasco, Viaim, and Timekettle flips that completely. Timekettle products like the M3, WT2 Edge, and W4 are built as translation devices first, earbuds second. The hardware, the app, and the interaction modes are all tuned for one job: two‑way, face‑to‑face conversation that does not feel like you are dictating into Google Translate.

You see the difference the minute you try to use them in the real world. Timekettle lets both people wear an earbud and just talk, with the system handling two‑way interpretation in near real time. Even Vasco, which secured our award at CES 2025, offers incredible translation features with the added ability to clone your voice using AI. There are specific modes for sitting across a café table, walking side by side, or listening to an announcement, and you can preload offline language packs so you are not stranded the moment you lose data. That matters when you are in a noisy street market, on a factory floor, or in a client meeting where “sorry, can you repeat that for the app” gets old fast. AirPods’ live translation is clever, but it is still bolted onto a general‑purpose audio product, with limited languages and workflows that quietly assume ideal conditions. Dedicated translator earbuds are what you pack when you know you are going to be operating in another language for days at a stretch; AirPods translation is what you pull out when you are already there and hoping the feature is good enough.

3. Personal Air Monitors: The Little Box That Calls Out Bad Air

A personal air quality monitor is very different from the big purifier that sits in one corner of your living room. This is the pocketable version: a small, battery‑powered sensor that tracks things like CO₂, particulates, VOCs, temperature, and humidity, and comes with you everywhere. Think of the same mindset behind something like Goveelife or uHoo’s indoor monitors, but shrunk down into a device you can toss in a bag or park on your desk. The moment you start carrying one, patterns jump out. That “3 p.m. crash” in your home office often lines up perfectly with CO₂ quietly creeping past the point where your brain stops firing properly. The subway line that always gives you a headache is not just “crowded and stressful,” it is a mix of stale air and fine dust. Your favorite café might have great coffee and terrible ventilation, while the boring chain across the street quietly nails fresh air and lower CO₂.

Where this becomes essential is when you pair it with travel and health decisions. Instead of vaguely checking a city‑wide AQI number, you get hyper‑local readings: the actual air in your Airbnb bedroom, that underground bar, that coworking space with sealed windows. A personal monitor can be the thing that tells you “open a window now,” “today is an N95 day,” or “maybe do not work six hours straight in this meeting room.” It is not a glamorous gadget, but it quietly moves you from guessing to measuring. In a world of wildfire smoke, construction dust, packed trains, and increasingly sealed buildings, that shift feels very 2026: less “trust the vibes,” more “trust the numbers in your pocket.”

4. Travel Routers: Bring Your Own Internet, Not Just Your Own Laptop

TCL and Asus quietly made one of the most important travel gadgets last year: routers built to live in your bag instead of under your TV. On the surface they look like yet another little plastic box with antennas, but the use case is very different from the router you got from your ISP. These are “BYO infrastructure” for people who work, stream, and store their lives online. You plug them into sketchy hotel Ethernet or join them to the random café Wi‑Fi, and they spin up your own private, password‑protected network for your laptop, phone, handheld console, and whatever else you are carrying. Instead of each device logging into “Hotel_WiFi_3” separately and fighting through captive portals, everything just connects to your SSID, with your own password, your own settings, and your own rules.

The VPN side is where they really earn a place in a 2026 kit. A good travel router can automatically tunnel all your traffic through a VPN or back to your home network, so every device behind it inherits that protection without you installing clients and certificates on each one. That means you can sit on airport Wi‑Fi and still safely access your media server at home, your NAS, your work tools, or region‑locked services, all as if you were on your own couch. For digital nomads and frequent flyers, it also solves a bunch of annoying edge cases: game consoles and streaming sticks that hate captive portals, devices that do not support VPNs natively, hotel networks that limit the number of devices per room. The travel router becomes the one “client” the hotel sees, while you hang a whole personal LAN off the back of it. It is not a glamorous product, but once you have had a week where your entire setup rides on that one little box, it is hard to go back to trusting whatever router the hotel happened to bolt to the ceiling.

5. Personal Media Servers: Owning Your Movies In A World That Hates Ownership

The idea of “buying” a movie used to be straightforward. You paid for a DVD or Blu‑ray, you got a disc, and that disc was yours until it got scratched to death or you moved house and lost it. You could watch it a thousand times, lend it to a friend, rip it for convenience, whatever. The streaming era quietly rewrote that deal. You are not buying movies anymore, you are renting access. A title lives on Netflix or Max or whatever for a while, then licensing changes, mergers happen, some accountant decides to write it off, and suddenly your favorite film or show just does not exist in your catalog. You can chase it across services, stacking subscriptions like trading cards, but that gets expensive very fast, and you are still at the mercy of contracts you never see.

A personal media server is the underdog rebellion against that. If you already have a NAS, you are basically one weekend away from rolling your own “Netflix” with something like Plex, Jellyfin, or Emby sitting on top. The workflow is not rocket science: buy discs, rip them, store the files on your NAS, let the media server scrape metadata and artwork, and suddenly you have a slick, searchable library that shows up on your TV, laptop, phone, or tablet just like a streaming app. The difference is that nothing disappears because a studio changed its mind. You decide what lives there, how long it stays, what version you keep, and who gets access. You can share that library with parents or siblings across the country without running into “password sharing crackdown” nonsense, and you can watch your stuff in a cabin with terrible internet because it is all local. It is the same basic promise we had with physical media, just updated for a world where your screen is no longer tethered to a disc player.

Now, the awkward bit: yes, pirating content is illegal. That is the line, and it is worth stating clearly. At the same time, the industry has created a situation where it is technically legal to charge you repeatedly for non‑ownership, while making entire catalogs vanish, region‑locking films behind arbitrary borders, and punishing you for sharing an account with your own family. When a bidding war over something like Warner Bros Discovery means one or two mega‑streamers get even more control over what exists where and for how long, it is hard not to see why people fall back on “if buying is not owning, piracy is not stealing” as a coping mechanism. I am not here to tell you what to do with torrents, but I will say this: a personal media server built around content you actually own is one of the few sane, future‑proof ways to make sure the movies and shows you care about are still watchable ten years from now. In a landscape that keeps trending toward bigger monopolies and weaker ownership, that box in the corner of your house starts to look less like a nerd toy and more like self‑defense.

The post Your Personal Free Netflix and other Top 5 Tech you Absolutely Need in 2026 first appeared on Yanko Design.

Did Ferrari And Jony Ive Just Build The ‘Apple Car’?

Posted on by

Five years after Jony Ive left Apple, and two years after Apple killed Project Titan, we finally know what the Apple Car’s interior *could* have looked like. It just happens to have a prancing horse on the steering wheel instead of a bitten apple.

The Ferrari Luce, revealed last week in San Francisco, is a transplant of Apple’s design language into automotive form. Everything about this interior, from the E-ink key fob to the OLED dials to the obsessive material purity, carries the unmistakable signature of Apple’s design peak from 2015 to 2019, when Ive still occupied his Cupertino office and the car project remained alive.

The Apple DNA is Everywhere

Walk through the components and the Apple DNA becomes impossible to ignore. The key fob magnetically docks into the center console and changes color via E-ink display. This is MagSafe technology meets Apple Watch complications, translated into a car key. The center screen features an analog clock that transforms into a chronograph and compass with the press of two buttons. Pull up any image of Apple Watch faces and the interaction model is identical.

The toggle switches and knobs scattered throughout the cabin represent the physical interface philosophy Ive has been refining since the original iMac. The Digital Crown on the Apple Watch, the mute switch on the iPhone, the volume controls on the HomePod. These are the same careful considerations about how humans interact with objects through touch and rotation. The OLED binnacle behind the steering wheel uses a parallax effect to create depth perception, the same technology that made the iPhone X’s face recognition possible, now applied to gauge clusters.

Then there’s the material palette: recycled aluminum with a microscopic anodized texture, Corning glass surfaces, leather in muted tan. This is the 2017 iPhone X material story. This is the unibody MacBook recipe. This is every premium Apple product from the past decade, reassembled into automotive architecture.

Wait, Is This the Same Jony Ive?

Consider what Ive said at the reveal: “It’s bizarre and lazy to assume the interface should be digital if the power source is electric.”

This is the man who killed the headphone jack. Who removed every port from the MacBook. Who spent twenty years eliminating physical buttons, physical connections, physical everything. And now he’s arguing that physical controls matter? That tactility is essential? That you can’t just solve everything with a touchscreen?

Maybe the context really does change everything. A phone lives in your pocket. You can look at it. A car moves at 200 kilometers per hour. Looking away kills people. Or maybe Ive has simply evolved. Perhaps LoveFrom represents a different philosophy than Apple did, one less concerned with relentless minimalism and more interested in appropriate solutions. Or perhaps this is who Ive always was, and Apple’s commercial pressures pushed him toward deletion when his instincts wanted refinement.

The Luce interior suggests that physical interfaces weren’t the enemy. Bad physical interfaces were. Give Ive the freedom to perfect a toggle switch, to make a dial that clicks with precision, to create a button that feels inevitable, and he’ll choose physical every time. The question is whether we’re seeing growth or contradiction.

The Timeline is ‘Interesting’

Apple started Project Titan in 2014. By 2016, Ive had become increasingly involved as the project shifted from full autonomy toward driver-focused experiences. He left Apple in 2019 but reportedly continued consulting on the car. In 2024, Apple abandoned the project entirely. During those years, Bloomberg reported that the Apple Car was supposed to feature premium materials, minimalist interiors, physical controls prioritized over touchscreens, and a “living room on wheels” concept.

Here’s what actually happened: Ive leaves Apple in 2019 and forms LoveFrom. Two years later, in 2021, Ferrari announces the partnership. That means conversations started immediately after his departure, possibly before. Ive spent a decade developing car interior concepts at a company with unlimited resources. Then he got to actually build one at a different company with unlimited resources and, crucially, manufacturing capability that Apple never developed.

My guess is Ferrari didn’t hire LoveFrom for an overhaul. They hired them for battle-tested thinking that never shipped.

Why Ferrari Said Yes

From Ferrari’s perspective, the logic is clear. They’ve never built an electric vehicle. Their customer base is deeply skeptical of electrification. They need to signal that the Luce represents something genuinely different, something beyond an electrified 296 GTB. So they hire the two most famous industrial designers on Earth, who happen to have spent years thinking about this exact problem at a different technology giant.

It’s outsourcing credibility as much as design. When people inevitably say “that doesn’t look like a Ferrari,” Ferrari can point to LoveFrom and say “well, exactly.” They’ve purchased permission to break from tradition by hiring people with no Ferrari tradition to break from. The prancing horse gives LoveFrom legitimacy in automotive circles. LoveFrom gives Ferrari legitimacy in technology circles. It’s a perfect exchange.

But the question remains: did Ferrari want Ive’s vision, or did they want Ive’s brand? Because what they received feels unmistakably like Apple-thinking while wearing a Ferrari cap.

The May Reveal Will Answer Everything

The real test arrives in May when Ferrari reveals the exterior. Right now we’ve only seen the interior, which is LoveFrom’s natural domain: screens, materials, ergonomics, spatial relationships. The exterior is different. It has to work in a Maranello showroom next to a 12Cilindri and an SF90. It has to look fast while standing still. It has to carry seventy-nine years of design language forward into an electric future.

Can Ive do that? Has he ever designed anything with that kind of visual aggression? His career has been defined by approachability, by objects that invite touch, by forms that recede rather than announce themselves. Ferraris don’t recede. They dominate spaces. They demand attention. If the exterior looks like an Apple product in May, then this really could be what the Apple Car might have become. If it looks genuinely Ferrari, then maybe LoveFrom understands they serve the brand rather than the reverse.

What This Tells Us About the Car That Never Was

The Luce interior reveals something bittersweet about the Apple Car that never was. This is the closest we’ll get to seeing what that vision might have looked like. But it also proves why Apple was probably right to kill the project. It took Ferrari, a company with seventy-nine years of automotive manufacturing experience, five years and presumably nine figures to turn Ive’s concepts into reality. And they still don’t know if customers will accept it. Imagine Apple attempting this from scratch, competing with Tesla on price, managing recalls and service networks and dealer relationships.

The Luce interior is stunning. It’s also a monument to why the Apple Car would have most likely been an operational nightmare, given that Apple isn’t an automotive company.

The irony is perfect: Jony Ive finally got to build his car. He just needed Ferrari to do the hard part.

The post Did Ferrari And Jony Ive Just Build The ‘Apple Car’? first appeared on Yanko Design.

Meta Misread the Future Twice. Now They’re Sitting on a Golden Egg, But Don’t Know It

Posted on by

Mark Zuckerberg changed his company’s name to Meta in October 2021 because he believed the future was virtual. Not just sort-of virtual, like Instagram filters or Zoom calls, but capital-V Virtual: immersive 3D worlds where you’d work, socialize, and live a parallel digital life through a VR headset. Four years and roughly $70 billion in cumulative Reality Labs losses later, Meta is quietly dismantling that vision. In January 2026, the company laid off around 1,500 people from its metaverse division, shut down multiple VR game studios, killed its VR meeting app Workrooms, and effectively admitted that the grand bet on virtual reality had failed. Investors barely blinked. The stock went up.

The official line now is that Meta is pivoting to AI and wearables. Zuckerberg spent much of 2025 building what he calls a “superintelligence” lab, hiring top-tier AI talent with eye-watering compensation packages that are now one of the largest drivers of Meta’s 2026 expense growth. The company released Llama models that benchmark decently against OpenAI and Google, embedded chatbots into WhatsApp and Instagram, and talks constantly about “AI agents” and “new media formats.” But from a product and profit perspective, Meta’s AI strategy looks suspiciously like its metaverse strategy: lots of spending, vague promises, and no breakout consumer experience that people actually love. Meanwhile, the thing that is quietly working, the thing people are buying and using in the real world, is a pair of $300 smart glasses that Meta barely talks about. If this sounds like a pattern, that’s because it is. Meta has now misread the future twice in a row, and both times the answer was hiding in plain sight.

The Metaverse Was a $70 Billion Fantasy

Reality Labs has been hemorrhaging money since late 2020. As of early 2026, cumulative operating losses sit somewhere between $70 and $80 billion, depending on how you slice the quarters. In the third quarter of 2025 alone, Reality Labs posted a $4.4 billion loss on $470 million in revenue. For 2025 as a whole, the division lost more than $19 billion. These are not rounding errors or R&D investments that will pay off next year. These are structural losses tied to a product category, VR headsets and metaverse platforms, that the market simply does not want at the scale Meta imagined.

The vision sounded compelling in a keynote. You would strap on a Quest headset, meet your coworkers in a virtual conference room with floating whiteboards, then hop over to Horizon Worlds to hang out with friends as legless avatars. The problem was that almost no one wanted to do any of that for more than a demo. VR remained a niche gaming platform with occasional fitness and entertainment use cases, not the next paradigm shift in human interaction. Zuckerberg kept insisting the breakthrough was just around the corner. He was wrong, and the January 2026 layoffs and studio closures were the formal acknowledgment that Reality Labs as originally conceived was dead.

The irony is that Meta actually had a potential killer app inside Reality Labs, and it murdered it. Supernatural, a VR fitness game that Meta acquired for $400 million in 2023, was one of the few pieces of Quest software that generated genuine user loyalty and recurring revenue. People who used Supernatural regularly described it as the most effective home workout they had ever done, combining rhythm-based gameplay with full-body movement in a way that treadmills and Peloton bikes could not replicate. It had a subscription model, a dedicated community, and real retention. In January 2026, Meta moved Supernatural into “maintenance mode,” which is corporate speak for “we fired almost everyone and it will get no new content.” If you are trying to prove that VR has mainstream utility beyond gaming, fitness is one of the most obvious wedges. Meta had that wedge, and it chose to kill it in the same round of cuts that shuttered studios working on Batman VR games and other prestige titles. The message was clear: Zuckerberg had lost interest in Quest, even the parts that worked.

The AI Bet That Looks Like the ‘Metaverse Bust’ 2.0

After spending years insisting the future was virtual worlds, Meta pivoted hard to AI in 2023 and 2024. Zuckerberg now talks about AI the way he used to talk about the metaverse: with sweeping language about paradigm shifts and transformative platforms. The company stood up an AI division focused on building what it calls “superintelligence,” hired aggressively from OpenAI and Anthropic, and made technical talent compensation the second-largest contributor to Meta’s 2026 expense growth behind infrastructure. This is not a side project. Meta is spending billions on AI research, training, and deployment, and Zuckerberg expects losses to remain near 2025 levels in 2026 before they start to taper.

From a technical standpoint, Meta’s AI work is solid. The Llama family of models is legitimately competitive with GPT-4 class systems and has found real adoption among developers who want open-source alternatives to OpenAI and Google. Meta’s internal AI is also driving real business value in ad targeting, content ranking, and moderation. Those systems work, and they contribute directly to Meta’s core revenue. But from a consumer product perspective, Meta’s AI feels scattered and often unnecessary. The company has embedded “Meta AI” chatbots into WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, and Facebook, none of which feel like natural places for a chatbot. Instagram’s feed is increasingly stuffed with AI-generated images and engagement bait that users actively complain about. Meta has launched character-based AI bots tied to influencers and celebrities, and approximately no one uses them. The gap between “we have impressive models” and “we have a product people love” is enormous, and it is the exact same gap that sank the metaverse.

What Meta is missing, again, is product intuition. OpenAI built ChatGPT and made it feel like the future because the interface was simple, the use cases were obvious, and it delivered consistent value. Google integrated Gemini into Search and productivity tools where users were already working. Meta, by contrast, seems to be throwing AI at every surface it controls and hoping something sticks. Zuckerberg talks about “an explosion of new media formats” and “more interactive feeds,” which in practice means more algorithmic slop and fewer posts from people you actually know. Analysts are starting to notice. One Bernstein note from early 2026 argued that the “winner” criteria in AI is shifting from model quality to product usage, which is a polite way of saying that having a great model does not matter if your product is annoying. Meta has a great model. Its products are annoying.

The financial picture is also murkier than Meta would like to admit. Reality Labs is still losing close to $20 billion a year, and while AI is not a separate reporting segment, the talent and infrastructure costs are clearly rising. Meta’s overall revenue growth is strong, driven by advertising, but the company is not yet showing a clear path to AI profitability outside of ‘ad optimization’. That puts Meta in the awkward position of having pivoted from one unprofitable moonshot (metaverse) to another potentially unprofitable moonshot (consumer AI products) while the actual profitable parts of the business, social ads and engagement, keep the lights on. This is a pattern, and it is not a good one.

The Smart Glasses Lead That Meta Is Poised to Lose

Meta talks about the Ray-Ban smart glasses constantly. Zuckerberg calls them the “ultimate incarnation” of the company’s AI vision, and the pitch is relentless: sales more than tripled in 2025, the glasses represent the future of ambient computing, this is the post-smartphone platform. The problem is not that Meta is ignoring the glasses. The problem is that Meta is about to squander a massive early lead, and the competition is closing in fast. 2026 is shaping up to be a blockbuster year for smart glasses. Samsung confirmed its AR glasses are launching this year. Google is releasing its first pair of smart glasses since 2013, an audio-only pair similar to the Ray-Ban Meta glasses. Apple is reportedly pursuing its own smart glasses and shelved plans for a cheaper Vision Pro to prioritize the project. Meta dominated VR because it was early, cheap, and had no real competition. In smart glasses, that window is closing fast, and the field is getting crowded with all kinds of names, from smaller players like Looktech and Xgimi’s Memomind to mid-sized brands like Xreal, to even larger ones like Google, TCL, and Xiaomi.

The Ray-Ban Meta glasses work because they are simple and focused. They take photos and videos, play music, make calls, and provide real-time answers through an AI assistant. Parents use them to record their kids hands-free. Travelers use them for translation. The form factor, actual Ray-Ban Wayfarers that cost around $300, means they do not scream “I am wearing a computer on my face.” This is the rare Meta hardware product that feels intuitive rather than forced, and it is selling because it solves boring, everyday problems without requiring users to change their behavior.

Then Meta made a critical mistake. To use the glasses, you have to route everything through the Meta AI app, which means you cannot just power-use the hardware without engaging with Meta’s AI-slop ecosystem. Want to access your photos? Meta AI. Want to tweak settings? Meta AI. The app is the mandatory gateway, and it is stuffed with the same kind of algorithmic recommendations and AI-generated suggestions that clutter Instagram and Facebook. Instead of letting the glasses be a clean, utilitarian tool, Meta is using them as another vector to push its AI products. Google and Samsung are not going to make that mistake. Their glasses will integrate with Android XR and existing ecosystems without forcing users into a single AI app. Apple, if and when it launches, will almost certainly take a similar approach: clean hardware, seamless OS integration, optional AI features. Meta had a head start, Ray-Ban branding, and a product people actually liked. It is on track to waste all of that by prioritizing AI evangelism over product discipline, and the competition is going to eat its lunch.

What Happens When You Chase Narratives Instead of Products

The pattern across metaverse and AI is that Meta keeps betting on big, abstract visions rather than iterating on the things that work. Zuckerberg is a narrative-driven founder. He wants to define the future, not respond to it. That impulse gave us Facebook in 2004, when no one else saw the potential of real-identity social networks, but it has led Meta astray repeatedly in the 2020s. The metaverse was a narrative, not a product. The idea that billions of people would strap on headsets to work and socialize in 3D was always more science fiction than product roadmap, but Zuckerberg committed so hard to it that he renamed the company.

AI feels like the same mistake. The narrative is that foundation models and “agents” will transform every part of computing, and Meta wants to be seen as a leader in that transformation. The actual products, chatbots in WhatsApp and AI-generated feed content, do not meaningfully improve the user experience and in many cases make it worse. Meanwhile, the thing that is working, smart glasses, does not fit cleanly into the AI or metaverse narrative, so it gets less attention and investment than it deserves. Meta’s 2026 strategy, “shifting investment from metaverse to wearables,” is a tacit admission of this, but it is couched in language that still emphasizes AI rather than the hardware itself.

The other pattern is that Meta is willing to kill its own successes if they do not fit the broader narrative. The hit VR fitness game on Meta’s Horizon, Supernatural, was working. It had subscribers, retention, and cultural momentum within the VR fitness community. It was also a relatively small, specific product rather than a platform play, and that made it expendable when Meta decided to scale back Reality Labs. The same logic applies to Quest more broadly. The headset had carved out a niche in gaming and fitness, and with sustained investment in content and ecosystem development, it could have grown into a meaningful adjacent business. Instead, Meta is deprioritizing it because Zuckerberg has decided the future is AI and lightweight wearables. That might turn out to be correct, but the way Meta is executing the pivot, by shuttering studios and putting products in maintenance mode rather than spinning them out or finding partners, suggests a lack of product discipline.

Why Smart Glasses Might Actually Be the Next Facebook

If you step back and ask what Meta is actually good at, the answer is not virtual reality or language models. Meta is good at building social products with massive scale, capturing and distributing content, and monetizing attention through ads. The Ray-Ban Meta glasses fit all of those strengths. They make it easier to capture photos and video, which feeds into Instagram and Facebook. They use AI to provide contextual information, which ties into Meta’s model development. And they are a physical product that people wear in public, which is a form of distribution and branding that Meta has never had before.

The bigger story is that smart glasses as a category are exploding, and Meta happened to be early. It is not just Samsung, Google, and Apple entering the space. Meta itself is expanding the Ray-Ban line with Displays (which adds a heads-up display) and partnering with Oakley on HSTN, a sportier model aimed at action sports. Google is teaming up with Warby Parker for its glasses, which gives it instant credibility in eyewear design. And then there are the startups: Even Realities, Xiaomi, Looktech, MemoMind, and dozens more, all slated for 2026 releases. This feels exactly like the moment AirPods sparked the true wireless earbud movement. Apple defined the format, then everyone from Samsung to Sony to no-name brands flooded the market, and now you can buy HMD ANC earbuds for 28 dollars. Smart glasses are following the same trajectory, which means the form factor itself is validated, and Meta’s early lead matters less than whether it can keep iterating faster than everyone else.

The other underrated piece is that having an instant camera on your face is genuinely useful in ways that VR headsets never were. People are using Ray-Ban Meta glasses as GoPro alternatives while skateboarding, cycling, and doing action sports, because POV capture without holding a phone or mounting a camera is frictionless. Content creators are using them to shoot hands-free B-roll at events like CES. Parents are using them to record their kids playing without the weird “I am holding my phone up at the playground” vibe. Pet owners are capturing spontaneous moments with dogs and cats that would be impossible to get with a phone. These are not sci-fi use cases or metaverse fantasies. They are boring, real-world problems that the glasses solve immediately, and that is why they are selling. Meta has spent a decade chasing grand visions of the future, and it accidentally built a product that people want right now. The challenge is whether it can resist the urge to over-complicate it before Google, Samsung, and Apple catch up.

The Real Lesson Is About Focus

Meta has spent the last five years oscillating between grand visions, metaverse and AI, and neglecting the products that actually work. The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are proof that when Meta focuses on solving real problems with tangible products, it can still build things people want. The metaverse failed because it was a solution in search of a problem, and the AI push is struggling because Meta is shipping features rather than products. Smart glasses, by contrast, are succeeding because they make everyday tasks easier without requiring users to change their behavior or buy into a futuristic narrative.

If Zuckerberg can internalize that lesson, Meta might actually have a shot at owning the next platform. But that requires a level of product discipline and restraint that Meta has not shown in years. It means resisting the urge to turn every product into a platform, admitting when a bet has failed rather than pouring another $10 billion into it, and focusing on iteration over narration. The irony is that Meta already has the right product. It just needs to stop looking past it.

The post Meta Misread the Future Twice. Now They’re Sitting on a Golden Egg, But Don’t Know It first appeared on Yanko Design.

2026 ROG Zephyrus Duo, ASUS Zenbook DUO: Versatility You Can Use Today

Posted on by

We have seen quite a number of laptops bearing mind-blowing flexible screens that fold or roll, and while they do help push the envelope of laptop design, they might be the future, but it is definitely not yet here. Foldables still scratch easily and are expensive, rollables are at a concept stage, and both rely on technology that is impressive in a demo booth but nerve-wracking when you actually need to get work done and cannot afford downtime or repair bills.

At CES 2026, ASUS and its gaming brand Republic of Gamers are offering two designs for people who need to get stuff done here and now. Although less spectacular than a screen that folds like paper, the ROG Zephyrus Duo 2026 (GX561) and the ASUS Zenbook DUO 2026 (UX8407) promise a more versatile and more reliable experience, using two rigid OLED panels, conventional hinges, and software layouts that treat dual screens as a workflow multiplier instead of a party trick.

Designer: ASUS

Dual Screens, Multiple Possibilities

With a foldable laptop, you get a large screen that folds down to the size of a normal laptop, or a laptop-sized screen that folds down to half its size. A rollable laptop, on the other hand, starts with a normal size and then expands for more real estate. They both try to offer more screen space with a manageable footprint, but it is still a single panel with a limited set of poses. You can fold it like a book or lay it flat, but you cannot flip one half around into a true tent or dual-monitor arrangement, and the panel itself stays soft and fragile under your fingertips.

The dual-screen design sported by the new Zephyrus Duo and Zenbook DUO uses two independent but connected screens, practically dual monitors connected by a hinge. They are conventional, rigid OLED panels, so none of the soft, scratch-prone flexible displays of foldables. It feels almost like a normal laptop, just one that has a second monitor permanently attached, hinged, and ready to be stood up, laid flat, or folded back into tent mode for sharing across a table.

More importantly, however, this design offers more versatility in terms of how you actually use the machine throughout the day. You can use only a single screen in laptop mode if space is a constraint or if you want to stay focused. You can flip the whole thing into tent mode to share your screen with someone sitting across from you. You can detach the keyboard entirely and stand both panels up as a tiny dual-screen desk, with the keyboard floating wherever your hands are most comfortable. ASUS brings this design to two different kinds of laptops, really just two sides of the same coin, offering the same core idea with the flexibility you can use today.

ROG Zephyrus Duo 2026 (GX561): Not Just a Gaming Laptop

This is not the first Zephyrus Duo, but the first one launched nearly six years ago was more of a one-and-a-half-screen laptop. There was a smaller touchscreen right above the keyboard that offered some space for tool palettes and chat windows, but it was still very much a secondary strip. This 2026 redesign, in contrast, is a bold new direction, going full dual-screen with two large OLED panels and a detachable keyboard like no other gaming laptop has dared to go.

It is a true gaming laptop, of course, and the specs show its pedigree. An Intel Core Ultra 9 processor, paired with up to an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU pushing up to 135W TGP, backed by up to 64GB of LPDDR5X memory and up to 2TB of PCIe Gen5 SSD storage with easy swap access. The 90Wh battery supports fast charging, hitting 50% in 30 minutes.

The main display is ROG Nebula HDR, a 3K OLED panel running at 120Hz with 0.2 ms response time, HDR 1100 nits peak brightness, 100% DCI-P3 coverage, and ΔE below 1 color accuracy, protected by Corning Glass DXC. All of that is cooled by ROG’s Intelligent Cooling system, with liquid metal on the CPU, a vapor chamber, graphite sheets, and 0 dB Ambient Cooling mode for silent operation when you are not rendering or fragging.

At 6.28 lb and just 0.77 inches thin, it is heavy enough to remind you there is serious silicon inside, but still portable enough to live in a backpack. The machine includes Wi-Fi 7, Thunderbolt 4, HDMI 2.1, USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, and an SD card slot, plus a six-speaker system with two tweeters and four woofers running Dolby Atmos, so you can actually enjoy game audio without always reaching for headphones.

Where the ROG Zephyrus Duo 2026 really shines is in versatility. Because a laptop that can run AAA games can practically do anything as well, including content creation, programming, video editing, and 3D work. Designers and creatives will definitely love the freedom such a design offers, paired with powerful hardware that does not compromise just to fit two screens. You can keep After Effects timelines on one panel while the preview lives on the other, or split code and output, or run a game on the main screen with Discord and guides on the second, all without alt-tabbing or shrinking windows.

ASUS Zenbook DUO 2026 (UX8407): Dual-Screen Goes Lux

The ASUS Zenbook DUO 2026 shaves off some of the gaming hardware to offer a dual-screen laptop that is slimmer, lighter, and a little more stylish. It is no slouch, though, and carries plenty of muscle to handle any productivity task you might throw at it. That also includes content creation, with a bit of light gaming on the side when you want to unwind between meetings or deadlines and do not need RTX power for every session.

The Zenbook DUO 2026 runs a next-gen Intel Core Ultra processor with up to 50 TOPS NPU for AI workloads, paired with Intel Arc integrated graphics, up to 32GB of memory, and up to 2TB of SSD storage. It supports up to 45W TDP with a dual-fan thermal solution, keeping the machine stable during sustained loads without the heavy cooling overhead of a discrete GPU, which helps keep the chassis thin and light.

The main display is an ASUS Lumina Pro OLED with 1000 nits peak brightness, and both screens are treated with the same level of care, making them equally usable for productivity, media, and light creative work. What differentiates this next-gen dual-screen from its predecessor is the new hinge design that puts the screens closer together. With thinner bezels, they now sit just 8.28mm apart, a 70% reduction, and they almost look like a single continuous piece.

ASUS has adopted its Ceraluminum material for the Zenbook DUO 2026’s laptop lid, bottom case, and kickstand, making it not only look and feel more luxurious but also be a bit more resilient to accidents and daily wear. The Zenbook DUO weighs just 1.65kg and has a 5% smaller footprint than previous generations, which makes it easier to carry and fit on smaller desks or café tables.

It is packed with ports, including two Thunderbolt 4 connections, HDMI 2.1, USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A, and an audio jack, plus six speakers with two front-firing tweeters and four woofers for surprisingly rich audio from a thin chassis. The keyboard connects via magnetic pogo pins or Bluetooth, and the machine supports ASUS Pen 3.0, turning both screens into writable surfaces for notes, sketches, or annotations during video calls or brainstorming sessions.

Like the Zephyrus Duo, the Zenbook DUO 2026 can be used in multiple orientations. Laptop mode with the keyboard on top of the lower screen for traditional clamshell use. Desktop mode with both screens stacked or side-by-side, the detachable keyboard placed separately, and the built-in kickstand propping the whole thing up like a tiny dual-monitor workstation. Tent mode for presentations or sharing content across a table without needing an external display or awkward screen mirroring. The flexibility is the point, and it works without asking you to trust a flexible panel not to crease or scratch under normal use.

Trade-offs and Potential

Dual-screen laptops are not perfect, of course. You need to keep track of a separate keyboard you hope you will not lose, though that is also the case for some foldable laptops anyway, and the detachable keyboard is also what lets both the Zephyrus Duo and Zenbook DUO behave like tiny dual-monitor desks in tent or desktop modes. These machines are easily heavier than single-screen laptops with equivalent specs, and they will likely be priced firmly in premium territory, though still far below the stratospheric costs of early foldables.

There is also that unavoidable divider between the two screens, though ASUS has gotten it down to 8.28 mm on the Zenbook DUO, and at that point it starts to feel more like a subtle pause than a major interruption. The hinge is still visible, the gap is still there, but it is less about accepting compromise and more about acknowledging that two rigid, high-quality OLED panels with a small gap are more practical than one fragile foldable panel with no gap at all.

Despite those limitations, these designs offer a kind of versatility that neither conventional laptops nor foldable laptops can match. You get to decide how to use the laptop, unrestricted by a single panel or a prescribed set of folds. You can boost your productivity with two screens for timelines and tools, or save space with just one when you are working in a tight spot. You can stand them up for presentations, lay them flat for collaborative work, or use them as a traditional clamshell when muscle memory takes over.

Maybe someday, we will have foldable laptops that can bend both ways, support multiple modes, and will not easily scratch with a fingernail or develop a permanent crease after a few months of daily folding. But if you want to be productive and create content today, the ROG Zephyrus Duo 2026 and ASUS Zenbook DUO 2026 could very well be among the most productive and most versatile laptops of 2026, delivering the dual-screen promise without the fragility, the expense, or the anxiety that comes with carrying a piece of still-experimental tech into the real world.

The post 2026 ROG Zephyrus Duo, ASUS Zenbook DUO: Versatility You Can Use Today first appeared on Yanko Design.

The Upcoming iPhone Fold feels like a response to Peer Pressure, not Innovation

Posted on by

Image Credits: Techtics

I could be wrong, and I hope to be… but the iPhone Fold seems to be gathering interest but not for the right reasons. Everyone loves innovation – not everyone adopts it. We saw how the Vision Pro absolutely caused a tsunami online before subsiding into the tiny ripple it now is. For what it’s worth, the iPhone Fold feels like déjà vu. Impressive tech that Apple took years to perfect, launched to much fanfare, but without a true reason or ecosystem to actually boost user adoption. The Vision Pro is cool, but even after 3 years, nobody really NEEDS it.

We all knew the iPhone Air was going to just be a stepping stone towards something greater – but the iPhone Air’s sales prove one thing – nobody needed a slim phone, so nobody ended up buying one. Samsung’s been making foldables for the better part of a decade, and I still don’t see people overwhelmingly choosing them over regular candybar phones, so my question is simple. What exactly can Apple do to make their iPhone Fold measurably better? And more importantly, does “Measurably Better” actually translate to sales? Or is this a response to peer pressure without really innovating in a direction that users want?

Joining a Party After the Music Has Faded

The context for Apple’s entry is a market that has already chosen a winner, and it is the conventional smartphone. For all the engineering hours poured into hinges and flexible glass by Samsung, Google, and others, the foldable category remains a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Global foldable shipments are expected to hover around 20 million units in 2025, with Samsung commanding nearly two-thirds of that volume. This sounds impressive until you place it next to the more than one billion smartphones shipped annually. Foldables are a niche, a high-priced experiment that has had years to capture the public’s imagination and has largely failed to do so. Apple is not just late to this party; it is showing up after the keg is tapped and most of the guests have gone home.

This sets up a strange dynamic. Apple’s usual playbook involves letting a market mature, identifying its core flaws, and then releasing a product so polished and user-focused that it redefines the category. With the iPhone Fold, the company appears to be entering a segment that is not just mature but also stagnant, with little evidence of pent-up consumer demand. The consensus timeline points to a 2026 launch, positioning the device as a hyper-premium “Ultra” or “Fold” model within the iPhone 18 lineup. This framing alone suggests a halo product, something to be admired from afar, rather than the next revolutionary device for the masses. It feels less like a strategic strike and more like an obligation.

Image Credits: Techtics

An Obsession with Perfecting the Crease

The rumored hardware details paint a picture of a device engineered to within an inch of its life. Reports converge on a book-style foldable with a 7.7 to 7.8-inch inner display and a smaller 5.5-inch screen on the outside. The central obsession seems to be the crease, that subtle valley that plagues every other foldable. Apple is reportedly holding out for a near-invisible fold, leaning on a next-generation ultra-thin glass solution from Samsung Display and a complex internal hinge with metal plates to manage stress. The device is also expected to be incredibly thin, perhaps just 4.5 millimeters when open and around 9.6 millimeters when closed, which would make it one of the most slender mobile devices ever made.

These are impressive technical feats, to be sure. A phone that unfolds into a small tablet without a distracting crease is a laudable goal. But it also speaks to a focus on solving problems that only engineers and tech reviewers seem to lose sleep over. To achieve this thinness, compromises are already surfacing, such as the rumored omission of Face ID in favor of a Touch ID sensor on the power button. This is the kind of trade-off that indicates Apple is prioritizing the physical object itself, its thinness and aesthetic perfection, over the established user experience. It is a device built to win spec-sheet comparisons and design awards, while its practical value for the average user remains an open question.

Image Credits: Techtics

A Playbook Written by a Rival

Perhaps the most telling detail in this whole saga is Apple’s reported reliance on its chief rival. Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo and others have indicated that Apple will adopt Samsung Display’s “crease-free display solution” instead of a fully homegrown technology stack. This is a significant departure for a company that prides itself on vertical integration and owning the core technologies that define its products. From custom silicon to camera sensors, Apple’s advantage has always been its ability to design the whole widget. By turning to Samsung for the most critical and defining component of its first foldable, Apple is tacitly admitting that it is playing catch-up in a game whose rules were written by someone else.

This move fundamentally supports the “peer pressure” thesis. It suggests that the urgency to have a foldable in the lineup has overridden the traditional, patient Apple R&D cycle. The company is effectively outsourcing the hardest part of the problem to the very competitor that has defined the category for years. While Apple has been filing patents related to flexible displays since 2014, the decision to launch with a rival’s core technology feels reactionary. It is a move made to fill a perceived gap in its portfolio, ensuring that Samsung does not get to claim the “most futuristic” phone on the market without a fight.

Image Credits: Techtics

The Ghost of the Vision Pro

This entire narrative feels eerily familiar. Just a few years ago, Apple launched the Vision Pro, a product of breathtaking technical achievement that answered a question few people were asking. It was, and is, a marvel of engineering that commands a price tag to match, and its sustained adoption has been modest at best. The iPhone Fold appears to be tracking along the same trajectory: years of secretive development, a focus on solving incredibly difficult hardware challenges, and a final product that will likely be priced into the stratosphere. Leaks suggest a starting price between $1,800 and $2,300, placing it well above even the most expensive iPhone Pro Max.

This pricing strategy pre-selects its audience, limiting it to die-hard enthusiasts and those for whom price is no object. Just like the Vision Pro, the iPhone Fold risks becoming a solution in search of a problem. A crease-free display is a better display, but is it $2,000 better? A thinner phone is nice to hold, but does it fundamentally change what you can do with it? The Vision Pro proved that technical excellence alone does not create a market. Without a compelling, everyday use case that justifies its cost and complexity, the iPhone Fold could easily become another beautiful, expensive piece of technology that is more admired than it is used.

Image Credits: Techtics

A New Class of Halo Product

Ultimately, the iPhone Fold is shaping up to be less of a mainstream product and more of a statement piece. It is Apple’s answer to a question posed by its competitors, a way to plant its flag at the absolute peak of the smartphone market. The goal may not be to sell tens of millions of units in the first year, though some bullish forecasts suggest shipments could reach 13-15 million. It is about defending the brand’s reputation for innovation and ensuring that the title of “most advanced smartphone” does not belong exclusively to an Android device. It is a halo product in the truest sense, designed to make the rest of the iPhone lineup look good by comparison.

The real innovation users crave might be more mundane: longer battery life, more durable screens, and more accessible pricing. The iPhone Fold, with its focus on mechanical novelty and aesthetic perfection, does not seem to address these core desires. Instead, it doubles down on the very trends that have made high-end phones feel increasingly out of reach for many. It is a beautiful, exquisitely engineered response to industry pressure, a device that perfects the foldable form factor. Whether it perfects it for a world that actually wants it remains to be seen.

The post The Upcoming iPhone Fold feels like a response to Peer Pressure, not Innovation first appeared on Yanko Design.