Tag Archives: editorial

Samsung and Google Are Trying Smart Glasses Again, at the Worst Possible Time

Posted on by

“Glasshole” entered Urban Dictionary as word of the day in March 2013, which tells you roughly how long it took society to make up its mind about face-mounted cameras. Google Glass had barely reached early users when bars, restaurants, and theaters started banning it. The device died from a social verdict so decisive it became a punchline. A decade later, Google is back. At Samsung’s Galaxy Unpacked in London today, the company helped reveal a new generation of AI-powered smart glasses, co-engineered with Samsung, dressed up in Warby Parker frames, and powered by Gemini. Same idea. Different fonts.

The climate into which these glasses arrive is not quiet. Meta spent the better part of 2026 trying to convince the public that AI glasses are aspirational, recruiting Kylie Jenner for the Meta Starfire Kylie Edition at $399 and positioning it as a style statement. What followed was a wave of coverage about covert recordings, a social media tutorial on disabling the LED light meant to prevent covert recording, and a protest campaign near Meta’s headquarters branding the glasses “fascist.” Some owners are reportedly now reluctant to wear them in public, having learned that the street name for their $399 fashion statement is “pervert glasses.” Google could not have picked a stranger moment to try again.

Designers: Samsung, Google, Warby Parker, and Gentle Monster

So what exactly did Samsung and Google show up with today? The glasses, branded Intelligent Eyewear, come in two designs: a slim black frame from Gentle Monster with a refined, fashion-forward silhouette, and a rich brown Warby Parker edition with a subtly upswept brow line meant for everyday wear. Under the hood, the Snapdragon AR1 Gen 1 chip handles the processing, the same silicon inside Ray-Ban Meta’s glasses, which is either reassuring or ironic depending on your mood. Gemini runs as the AI assistant on Android XR, the platform Samsung and Google co-developed, delivering information spoken into your ear rather than displayed on a screen. Battery life sits at nine hours, with a charging case that carries up to seven additional full charges. There is a built-in camera. There is always a built-in camera.

The positioning is reasonably clever and deliberate. By going audio-first with no display, Samsung sidesteps the cyborg-visor aesthetic that made Google Glass so alienating, and by partnering with Gentle Monster and Warby Parker, two brands with genuine fashion credibility, they are betting that good frames can do what celebrity endorsements and $400 price tags couldn’t for Meta. The glasses also pair with both Android and iOS, which removes the ecosystem friction that would otherwise halve the addressable market before a single unit ships. On paper, this is the most considered entry into smart glasses anyone has made.

The paper, unfortunately, has to reconcile with the sh*tstorm that is Meta and Kylie’s brand collab. Kylie Jenner’s job in the Meta Starfire campaign was to make AI glasses feel safe and aspirational, particularly for women. She wore them, posed with them, starred in content shot from the glasses’ own point of view. What nobody at Meta apparently modeled was the possibility that Jenner’s involvement would become the story, and the story would be unflattering. Lorde publicly called the glasses “not sexy.” Women across Brussels and beyond reported being filmed without consent by men wearing the exact product Jenner was paid to glamorize. Meta had to patch their own hardware to stop people from disabling the recording indicator light. The fact that a patch was required is its own headline.

Samsung and Google have built in visible recording indicators and user-controlled privacy settings, which they are smart to advertise loudly. But the problem Meta created for the entire category goes deeper than indicator lights. The public now has a fixed mental model of what a camera on someone’s face means, and it was not built by reading spec sheets. It was built by watching someone get filmed on the bus, by the NameTag story, by “pervert glasses” becoming the phrase that stuck when “Intelligent Eyewear” didn’t.

Google killed Glass in 2015 because society rejected the behaviour the device enabled before the technology even had a chance to mature. Everything Samsung unveiled today is genuinely more refined, more considered, and more fashionable than anything Glass ever was. The question is whether any of that is the actual problem. Going by recent evidence, the frames were never really the issue.

The post Samsung and Google Are Trying Smart Glasses Again, at the Worst Possible Time first appeared on Yanko Design.

From Polestar to OnePlus to DJI, the US is becoming a harder place for globally influential brands

Posted on by

Polestar exited the US market last week. OnePlus decided to stop selling phones in the US on Friday. DJI has been standing at the exit for the better part of a year, held in place by a regulatory designation that has made its position in the American market functionally untenable. Three brands, three different product categories, and a pattern that is becoming difficult to explain away as coincidence or bad timing.

These were not fringe players. Polestar was the premium EV that made restraint look like a design philosophy. OnePlus spent a decade building the most credible alternative to Samsung and Apple in the Android space. DJI invented the consumer drone photography market and still dominates it globally. The US market, for a combination of regulatory, political, and structural reasons, has made room for fewer and fewer of them.

A Coincidence of Unfortunate Events?

It is tempting to view these departures as isolated stories, each with its own unique cause. Polestar’s exit was not a market failure; it was a regulatory execution. The US Commerce Department denied the brand authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, effectively deciding that its Chinese ownership through Geely made its data-collecting hardware a national security risk. The quality of the car, its minimalist interior, and its thoughtful user interface were irrelevant. The decision was about its corporate family tree, and no amount of design excellence could overcome that.

OnePlus’s retreat is a different flavor of failure, one driven by the peculiar economics of the American smartphone market. Success in the US requires appeasing a handful of powerful carriers who act as gatekeepers to the mainstream consumer. This means expensive certification processes, marketing kickbacks, and a willingness to play by rules set by companies that also have cozy relationships with Apple and Samsung. Despite building a loyal base of tech enthusiasts who bought its phones unlocked, OnePlus, under its parent company OPPO, ultimately decided the cost of scaling up in a protected duopoly was no longer worth it.

DJI represents a third path, a slow squeeze rather than a clean break. Placed on a government “Entity List,” the company is not technically banned from selling to consumers. Instead, it is hobbled. It faces restrictions on sourcing US technology, and the designation serves as a powerful warning to government agencies and corporate clients. This creates a chilling effect that bleeds into the consumer space, eroding trust and complicating its long-term strategy. The mechanism is different, but the outcome is the same: a globally significant hardware brand finds its American ambitions curtailed by forces beyond its control.

The Design Drought is Step to Something Worse

Losing these brands is about more than reduced competition. It is about a narrowing of the American consumer’s aesthetic and technological horizons, and the effects do not stop at taste. Each of these companies brought a distinct design philosophy to its category, one that challenged the assumptions of the established players. Polestar offered a vision of the electric vehicle as a piece of clean, minimalist architecture. Its focus on sustainable materials, restrained surfacing, and a calmer user experience stood apart from Tesla’s maximal dependence on software theatrics and from the visual clutter that still defines many legacy EVs.

OnePlus, at its peak, represented the power of focused, enthusiast-driven design. It championed the idea that premium performance and a clean software experience did not need to come with a four-figure price tag. Its signature alert slider and tactile finishes showed an attention to physical detail that dominant players often reserve for their most expensive models. Its retreat may not carry the same regulatory weight as Polestar’s or DJI’s predicament, and American consumers never embraced it at mass-market scale, but its diminished presence still removes one more source of pressure from a smartphone market that already feels overly settled.

DJI’s contribution extends far beyond the drone itself. The company effectively created the industrial design language for the entire consumer aerial imaging category. From the folding architecture of its Mavic drones to the intuitive ergonomics of its handheld gimbals, DJI made advanced robotics feel approachable and elegant. The pressure placed on DJI, much like the pressure placed on Huawei before it, has done very little to slow either company’s pace of innovation globally. If anything, it has simply reduced America’s access to the results. The same is true in electric vehicles. A market shaped around Tesla as the default benchmark risks isolating itself from how far competitors like BYD have pushed battery packaging, platform efficiency, and especially charging technology. When consumers are cut off from serious alternatives, incumbents are no longer forced to respond to the best ideas available anywhere in the world. They only have to outperform the smaller field left standing in front of them.

That is the deeper problem taking shape here. Throttling options does not only limit what people can buy. It limits what the market has to compete against. Innovation rarely thrives in protected comfort (Siri has overwhelmingly sucked because Apple doesn’t have to compete with an alternative assistant within their ecosystem). It accelerates when companies are forced to answer uncomfortable questions from better rivals, cheaper rivals, or simply different rivals. Once those rivals are filtered out, delayed, or kept at the border long enough to become irrelevant, the market begins to confuse stability with progress. The design drought becomes a technology drought soon after, and consumers end up paying premium prices for products that evolve more slowly than they should.

America is No Longer the Default Stage

For decades, succeeding in the United States was the ultimate benchmark for any global hardware brand. It was the largest, most lucrative, and most culturally influential market. That is no longer a given. Today, launching in the US is a complex risk calculation, where the potential rewards must be weighed against a growing list of liabilities: suffocating regulatory hurdles, intense political scrutiny, and the high cost of competing against entrenched incumbents.

This has created a new reality where the most experimental and daring product design often debuts in Asia or Europe first. The US market, instead of being the exciting global stage, is increasingly becoming a curated and filtered destination for products deemed commercially and politically safe enough for entry. We are getting the final, polished drafts, not the exciting early sketches. The result is a design landscape that is becoming more homogenous, more predictable, and less reflective of the true diversity of global hardware innovation. The conversation is happening elsewhere, and we are only hearing the echoes.

The post From Polestar to OnePlus to DJI, the US is becoming a harder place for globally influential brands first appeared on Yanko Design.

Google, Amazon, and Sonos All Redesigned Their Smart Speakers, Except Apple

Posted on by

Between 2017 and 2021, Amazon’s devices division burned through over $25 billion, with Alexa and Echo hardware at the center of almost every bad quarter. The logic had always been that the hardware was just the entry point, a subsidized gateway to a much larger commercial relationship with the customer. But the gateway proved harder to monetize than expected. Alexa stayed useful but shallow. Echo devices multiplied without ever feeling essential. By the mid-2020s, the smart speaker category had the atmosphere of a bet that had come in wrong, expensive, underperforming, and quietly being maintained rather than championed. These fabric-covered cylinders became kitchen furniture, occasionally summoned for timers and weather forecasts, rarely inspiring anyone to rethink the room they lived in.

That atmosphere is lifting in 2026. Google, Amazon, and Sonos are each arriving with hardware that reflects a completely different set of priorities: softer silhouettes, AI that understands context, and audio that adapts to a space rather than simply occupying it. The smart speaker is being redesigned from the object outward, and the convergence across three separate companies suggests something closer to a category-wide correction than a coincidence of product cycles. The one company yet to offer a visible answer to this moment is Apple. It has the custom silicon, the acoustic engineering, and the design heritage to lead this reset. So far, it has chosen to watch.

The freeze began around 2020, right after the category normalized itself into oblivion. By that year, every major player had established its smart speaker lineup: a small version, a premium version, and often a screen-equipped version. Google had the Nest Audio and Nest Mini. Amazon had refined the Echo and Echo Dot into cheap, competent appliances. Apple had shipped the HomePod mini and repositioned the original HomePod as a premium but niche play. The market was saturated, the designs were settled, and the pace of innovation slowed to the rhythm of assistant software updates rather than genuine hardware rethinks. For half a decade, the smart speaker became something people bought once and forgot about. The category was not dead, but it had stopped asking interesting questions about itself.

What is happening now feels like an answer to questions the industry spent years avoiding. The new generation is defined by a shared visual and behavioral language that cuts across competitive lines. Fabrics are softer, volumes are lower, edges are gentler. Google’s latest Home Speaker trades the aggressive branding and hard plastic of earlier models for something that reads more like a domestic object than a gadget. Amazon rebuilt four Echo devices from scratch for its Alexa+ platform, including the new Echo Dot Max and Echo Studio, both of which prioritize touch-first controls and room-blending forms. Sonos pushed the Play and Era 100 SL into the same softer, more architectural territory. These are not coincidental choices. They reflect a collective decision that the smart speaker should feel native to the home, a piece of the room’s fabric rather than an intrusion into it.

The surface redesign only works because the internal proposition has changed too. The smarter pitch in 2026 is about behavior, not specs. AI assistants are becoming more conversational, more capable of understanding context, and in many cases more locally responsive without needing constant cloud reliance. On-device processing means faster reactions and more natural interactions. Room-aware audio tuning means the speaker adapts its output to the acoustics of the space it occupies, rather than blasting a fixed profile into every environment. The result is a device that feels less like a tool you command and more like a presence that integrates into how you use a room. That shift from command-and-response to ambient intelligence is what separates this generation from everything that came before it.

Apple’s absence from this wave is conspicuous, and it lands differently now than it might have two years ago. The company has not publicly joined the 2026 reset in any visible way. Its HomePod and HomePod mini remain comparatively static in a market that is suddenly showing signs of genuine motion. That gap would be easier to dismiss if Apple were not also in the middle of a larger hardware leadership transition. Johny Srouji, who has led Apple’s silicon engineering since 2015, was promoted to Chief Hardware Officer in April 2026, taking control of not just chips but batteries, cameras, sensors, and the full stack of core hardware technologies. Alongside John Ternus, who oversees hardware engineering as Senior Vice President, Srouji is now reshaping Apple’s product roadmap from the silicon up. That internal realignment suggests Apple is rethinking what it builds and why at a structural level, which makes the HomePod silence feel less like neglect and more like a strategic pause.

The question is what that pause means for the smart speaker itself. Apple could be deciding that the category remains secondary to other home devices in its hierarchy, or it could be planning a response that reflects the new leadership’s priorities in ways the current HomePod line does not. If Apple ships a more intelligent, more room-aware, more visibly rethought HomePod in the next twelve months, it will validate the broader industry thesis that smart speakers really are resetting around AI behavior and domestic presence. If it does not, then Apple may be signaling that it sees the smart speaker as a solved accessory category rather than a serious frontier worth heavy investment.

Either way, Apple’s eventual move will tell us more than just what the company thinks about voice assistants. It will reveal whether the smart speaker has genuinely earned a second act or whether the current wave of redesigns from Google, Amazon, and Sonos turns out to be the industry’s last serious attempt to make these devices matter. The category spent years being useful without being essential. The new generation is trying to close that gap. Apple’s decision to join that effort, or not, will be the clearest indication yet of whether the bet is finally worth taking seriously.

The post Google, Amazon, and Sonos All Redesigned Their Smart Speakers, Except Apple first appeared on Yanko Design.

Who is Apple’s New Chief Hardware Officer: Meet Johny Srouji, The Man Shaping Apple’s Roadmap

Posted on by

Every great Apple product from the last thirty years came out of a partnership. Steve Jobs had Jony Ive, a designer with more operational power than anyone at Apple except Jobs himself. Tim Cook inherited that dynamic in 2011, and over the next fifteen years the industrial design studio slowly lost its seat at the executive table, with finance and operations gaining a larger say over product direction. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman has described the current studio as a shell of what it used to be, briefed by other teams rather than briefing them. That is the Apple John Ternus takes over on September 1, 2026, and his choice of number two says everything about where the next decade is headed.

Johny Srouji became Apple’s Chief Hardware Officer on April 20, 2026, a title that did not exist a day earlier. The role folds Apple’s hardware engineering group, previously run by Ternus himself, into the hardware technologies organization Srouji has led since 2015. He now controls silicon, batteries, cameras, sensors, displays, storage controllers, cellular modems, product design engineering, and every reliability lab in Cupertino. Ternus is his only boss, which effectively makes Srouji operational number two at a four trillion dollar company. The last time one Apple executive held this much hardware authority, Steve Jobs was still alive and Bob Mansfield was running the show.

Srouji was born in 1964 in Haifa, the third of four children in a middle-class Arab Christian family, his father a carpenter who built casting molds by trade. He studied computer science at Technion, graduating summa cum laude on his bachelor’s and magna cum laude on his master’s. Before Apple came calling, he had already done processor design at Intel Austin and managed IBM’s POWER7 CPU. Bob Mansfield recruited him in 2008 to build a chip Apple did not yet know how to design, which became the A4 that launched inside the first iPad and iPhone 4. Colleagues describe him as no-nonsense, allergic to technical vagueness, and unwilling to accept anything less than the hard truth about what silicon can and cannot do.

Every A-series and M-series chip you have ever used came out of Srouji’s org. His team pulled off the 64-bit A7 in 2013 that caught Qualcomm completely flat-footed, then engineered the M1 transition in 2020 that made Intel Macs obsolete overnight. Apple’s whole vertical integration story, the one that lets a MacBook Air outperform Windows laptops twice its price on battery life, is essentially his life’s work. His team also introduced the Neural Engine in 2017 with the A11 Bionic, quietly laying the groundwork for on-device AI half a decade before the industry decided AI was a talking point. The man who liberated Apple from Intel’s silicon almost got poached by Intel to be their CEO in 2019.

Ive read Dieter Rams and treated industrial design as the ordering principle of a product, sketching an object first and asking engineering to solve for it. Srouji operates from the opposite pole, treating silicon as the ordering principle and letting form factor, material, and thermal envelope adapt to what the chip can do at what power draw. The $599 MacBook Neo Apple launched in March 2026 is the perfect case study, because it only exists as a product because the A18 Pro from last year’s iPhone 16 Pro became efficient enough to run macOS without cooking itself or eating the battery. Ternus led the keynote and got the credit, but Srouji built the runway. That reframing of where design begins, at the wafer rather than the render, is the first coherent thesis about form and function anyone has articulated at Apple since Ive walked out in 2019.

Ternus and Srouji together cover the full stack from atom to product enclosure, which is the tightest hardware leadership Apple has run since Jobs, Ive, and Jon Rubinstein were setting product direction from the same conference room. Srouji has already started restructuring aggressively, splitting hardware into five groups and moving product design authority from veteran VP Kate Bergeron to Shelly Goldberg on Mac and Dave Pakula on Watch, iPad, and AirPods. He has also stood up a new Ecosystems Platforms and Partnerships team led by Matt Costello and Kevin Lynch, the latter of whom runs Apple’s still-secret robotics group. In his internal memo to staff, Srouji wrote that he intends to deepen integration between the silicon teams and the product-creating teams. Translation: the chip designers will now sit closer to the people deciding what the next iPhone actually looks like.

Everyone keeps asking whether Ternus and Srouji will turn Apple into a Xiaomi or Samsung style product factory, launching sub-brands and price tiers across every possible category. I don’t think that is where this goes. Xiaomi wins on volume and value engineering, Samsung wins on being first to try every new form factor, and Apple under Srouji looks positioned to do something closer to the Jobs-era iPod strategy: one core capability, several related form factors, each tuned to a different lifestyle. AI camera glasses in 2027, camera-equipped AirPods, a rumored wearable pendant, a HomePad with a swiveling display, and a foldable iPhone all sit on the same roadmap, and they are fundamentally the same argument as iPod versus Nano versus Shuffle was in 2005. Discipline stays intact, but the surface area for hardware expands into whatever new form the current silicon can actually support without turning your pocket into a hand warmer.

Srouji’s promotion is Apple’s bet that AI-era consumer devices will be won by whoever can co-design chip, sensor, battery, and enclosure as a single integrated object. That is a bet Apple can uniquely make because it already owns the whole stack, and one that Meta, Google, and even OpenAI (currently building its own hardware future with Ive, Evans Hankey, and Tang Tan poached straight out of Cupertino) still cannot fully replicate. The risk sits on the software side, where Apple’s own AI models trail rivals and Siri keeps getting delayed for reasons nobody at Apple wants to explain in public. Srouji cannot fix that himself. What he can do is make sure that whenever Apple finally ships a competent generative model, the hardware waiting to receive it has been designed around what the model actually needs, rather than retrofitted around it after launch.

The post Who is Apple’s New Chief Hardware Officer: Meet Johny Srouji, The Man Shaping Apple’s Roadmap first appeared on Yanko Design.

Flipper One Behind The Scenes: “Sharper, Smarter, More Cunning, Brutal” says Flipper CEO

Posted on by

When you first see the Flipper One, it’s clear something has changed. Its predecessor, the Flipper Zero, had the playful, almost toy-like charm of a 90s gadget. It was clever, compact, and just a little bit mischievous. The Flipper One, by contrast, is not playing around. With its exposed metal, ruggedized shell, and dense, purposeful form, it looks less like a hacker’s Tamagotchi and more like something you’d find bolted to the dashboard of a military vehicle. The design language has become, in the words of Flipper’s CEO Pavel Zhovner, “sharper, smarter, more cunning, more brutal.”

The source of this aesthetic shift isn’t another cyberpunk movie. While the team’s love for William Gibson’s Johnny Mnemonic is still part of the lore, the Flipper One’s design was shaped by a much more tangible artifact. “There was a very tangible, physical reference this time too,” Zhovner explains in an exclusive interview with Yanko Design, “the Yaesu FT-897D radio transceiver. It’s serious field communications equipment.” That single object unlocks the entire story behind the Flipper One’s aggressive new form. The team’s earliest prototypes, he notes, were shaped by hand in polymer clay to mimic the radio’s rugged, function-first ergonomics, and even then, they “looked remarkably close to it.”

Designers: Pavel Zhovner & Flipper Devices

Yaesu FT-897D radio transceiver

This move from fiction to field equipment wasn’t just a stylistic choice; it was a direct response to the device’s new capabilities. The core challenge in creating the Flipper One wasn’t about living up to the Zero’s reputation, but a years-long technical quest. “For years, we were chasing the right balance between performance, battery life, and price,” Zhovner recalls. Every processor they considered “forced a compromise we weren’t willing to make.” The breakthrough finally came with the arrival of the RK3576 chip. “The moment we looked at its performance specs and peripheral support, we knew – this was it.”

But that power came at a cost: heat. “Unlike Flipper Zero, Flipper One runs hot,” Zhovner says. Suddenly, the housing couldn’t just be a passive shell; it had to become an active part of the thermal solution. This is where the Yaesu’s design influence became critical. The rugged, armored look isn’t just for show. “The metal elements are doing real thermal work, acting as part of the cooling system,” Zhovner points out. The design team decided to lean into this necessity, creating a device that visually communicates its own power and thermal demands. The Flipper One wears its cooling system like armor because, in a very real sense, it is.

This philosophy of brutal honesty extends to the iconic dolphin mascot, which has also evolved. It’s now sharper, more angular, and decidedly less friendly – a reflection of the smarter, more powerful machine it represents. This commitment to a cohesive design language is rooted in the team’s belief in their core visual element. “We’re simply in love with our aggressive triangle,” Zhovner states. “It was never up for debate.” The goal was to preserve that instant recognizability while adapting it to a more demanding set of functional requirements.

Preliminary clay model of the Flipper One

The device’s functionality was also shaped by hard-won lessons from the Flipper Zero. One of the biggest takeaways was that expandability should never come at the expense of usability. “With Flipper Zero, the moment you plug in any module, the whole experience degrades,” Zhovner admits. “It becomes harder to carry and pocket, and the port takes a beating over time.” For Flipper One, this led to a strict design mandate: modules had to integrate seamlessly. The team landed on two types – M.2 and GPIO – both designed to either “disappear completely under the back cover, or they extend flush along the rear surface.” It’s a small detail that reveals a mature approach to product design, focused on the realities of daily use.

Ultimately, the Flipper One’s serious, function-driven design is meant to signal that it’s an entirely different kind of tool. Zhovner is quick to clarify that this isn’t a replacement for the Flipper Zero. Instead, the two devices operate on different technological layers. Flipper Zero is a “Layer 0” offline tool for NFC, RFID, and other low-level interfaces. Flipper One is a “Layer 1” IP/network cyberdeck – a pocket-sized, open Linux computer. It can be a portable gateway, a smart home hub, a media center, or a radio platform for listening to everything from pilot communications to satellites.

By grounding its design in the world of serious hardware, Flipper has created a device that feels less like a controversial gadget and more like a piece of portable infrastructure. It’s a tool that, despite its aggressive looks, is designed to be quietly useful, whether as a travel router in a hotel or a honeypot sensor guarding your home network. The Flipper One’s journey from a clay model inspired by a ham radio to a finished cyberdeck is a story of a company, and a product, that is growing up.

The post Flipper One Behind The Scenes: “Sharper, Smarter, More Cunning, Brutal” says Flipper CEO first appeared on Yanko Design.

Smart Glasses Could Transform Sports. But There’s a Trust Deficit.

Posted on by

For centuries, a pair of glasses has been one of the most socially innocent objects a person can wear. They exist in one of two lanes: as a quiet medical tool for correcting vision, or as a deliberate fashion statement, an accessory as personal as a watch. In either role, tool or ornament, they are fundamentally passive. They sit on the face, and in return for their service or their style, society grants them a kind of ambient trust. Smart glasses were designed to borrow that trust. They slip into the familiar silhouette of eyewear, hijacking the social permission we’ve granted them, hoping we won’t notice the difference.

But that’s the thing, isn’t it? The moment that quiet, passive object gains the ability to see, record, and communicate on its own, the social contract shatters. It stops being a corrective lens or a simple accessory and becomes a question mark. And in the high-stakes world of professional sports, that question is no longer theoretical. In the Indian Premier League, one of the most-watched cricket leagues on the planet, it has been answered with a firm ‘no.’ The league’s advisory body recently banned smart eyewear from all restricted match-day areas as reported by Indian Express, not because they might help a player see better, but because their ability to discreetly communicate threatens the very integrity of the game. It’s the first major institutional line drawn in the sand, a clear signal that what makes smart glasses so compelling, their seamless, discreet power, is exactly what makes them so threatening to an environment built on trust.

Which makes the current scoop from the FIFA World Cup all the more interesting. This year, cameras attached to referees have been delivering something genuinely compelling: a first-person view from the center of the match, fast, intimate, and unlike any angle a traditional broadcast camera can offer. FIFA has partnered with Lenovo to stabilize the footage, reportedly reducing blur and shakiness by up to 50%. The result is a piece of wearable camera tech that audiences have embraced without a second thought. And the reason it works has nothing to do with the stabilization algorithm or the resolution. It’s because everyone knows exactly what it is, what it records, and who controls the output. The ref cam is sanctioned intimacy, an invitation behind the official’s gaze with the entire institution of the sport standing behind it.

The problem has never really been head-worn cameras. GoPros have existed for more than twenty years, and nobody writes angry op-eds about them, because a GoPro announces itself the way a tourist in neon shorts announces themselves. Gloriously, almost aggressively obvious about what it is and what it’s doing. The same logic applies to the FIFA ref rig: dedicated broadcast hardware, sanctioned by the league, feeding a known output to a known destination. Smart glasses are slipperier. Their design philosophy actively works against that legibility, optimized to look like ordinary eyewear while quietly carrying camera, microphone, and communication capabilities underneath. That gap between appearance and function is exactly where trust evaporates.

Silicon Valley has spent years selling the idea that the best interface is the one that disappears. Ambient computing, seamless experiences, invisible technology. It’s a seductive design philosophy, and in most consumer contexts, it’s probably the right one. But sports may be quietly proving the opposite. In a high-stakes, heavily monetized environment where betting markets move in real time, the most valuable technology is often the least ambiguous. Leagues don’t just need devices that work; they need devices that can be understood at a glance, audited, regulated, and explained. The IPL’s concern isn’t really about what smart glasses are doing today. It’s about what they could be doing, invisibly, in a dressing room, on a pitch, in a dugout. Seamlessness, in that context, isn’t a feature. It’s a liability.

None of this means smart glasses have no future in sports. They might, just not in their current form. The ref cam points toward a version of wearable vision technology that could genuinely work: purposeful, controlled, institutionally transparent, and designed to communicate its function rather than conceal it. Soccer officials in other leagues are already using similar cameras for post-match performance reviews, a quiet but meaningful step toward something bigger. The path from there to a trusted live-match tool, however, runs directly through a design problem. Smart glasses need to stop borrowing the social invisibility of ordinary eyewear and start building their own visual language, one that tells players, officials, and leagues exactly what the device is, what it records, and who is watching. Until then, the trust deficit isn’t a policy issue. It’s a design failure, wearing a very familiar frame.

The post Smart Glasses Could Transform Sports. But There’s a Trust Deficit. first appeared on Yanko Design.

AI Generates Thousands of Product Renders a Day. Almost None Ship.

Posted on by

In April 2024, a design page called Inspiring Designs posted a few images of a gorilla-shaped couch. The gorilla’s arms curved into armrests. Its chest and stomach formed the back and seat cushion. On TikTok, the images passed 500,000 likes before most people had fully processed what they were looking at. Comment sections filled up immediately with a single question: where do I buy one? A furniture manufacturer in China saw the numbers and went to work. Molds were made, foam was cut, fabric was stretched over frames. The couch became real.

Real, and deeply underwhelming. The physical versions that reached buyers were less detailed, less textured, less everything. The quality left much to be desired, as reviewers put it diplomatically. The couch that existed in photographs had been generated by a machine that had never heard of manufacturing constraints, and no factory floor could close that gap. Back on eBay and TikTok, merchants began listing the couches anyway, using only the original AI images, because the AI images were what people actually wanted. The physical object was almost beside the point.

Clearly a fake ‘keyboard-inspired sofa’ trending on Instagram and Pinterest

What happened with the gorilla sofa was easy to frame as a novelty at the time. A funny edge case, a quirky viral moment, the kind of thing that design blogs screenshot and move on from. But the same dynamic was already baking into the standard commercial transaction at enormous scale. Temu, which now serves more than 416 million monthly active users worldwide, up from roughly 167 million in early 2024, has become the central arena for what shoppers openly call “AI slop.” The phrase is blunt and accurate: a listing image that looks generated rather than photographed, presenting a product with a visual finish that the manufactured version will never have. Security guides and consumer watchdog sites now list “looks AI-generated” as a standard red flag alongside mismatched fonts and suspiciously round prices. Deepfake detection firm Pindrop estimates that three in ten retail fraud attempts today are AI-generated. The gorilla sofa was a novelty. AI slop is infrastructure.

Food delivery brought the problem somewhere more visceral. In February 2024, a 404 Media investigation found dozens of ghost kitchens, delivery-only restaurant brands operating out of unmarked shared commercial spaces, promoting food on DoorDash and Grubhub with AI-generated images that bore little resemblance to anything a cook could plate. Some of the images were technically impossible. Chopsticks passed through the bowl rather than resting on it. Broth caught light in ways that liquid does not. A bowl of ramen could look sculpted, with chashu pork fanned into perfect petals over eggs with custard-gold yolks, because no one had actually cooked it. The photograph was the product, made in software, and the delivery was an afterthought.

AI-generated food photos are all over Doordash, UberEats, and other food delivery apps.

The platforms have since tried to draw a line. DoorDash launched AI photo tools in April 2025 designed to improve lighting, framing, and plating appearance without altering the food itself. Uber Eats asked contributors to avoid submitting AI-generated or heavily edited images. Enhancement of a real dish, the logic goes, sits in a different category from full fabrication. That line is technically coherent and practically very difficult to police.

Then the tools changed hands. Customers discovered that the same AI and image-editing capabilities available to ghost kitchen operators were available to them too. A documented trend emerging by January 2026 showed shoppers using Photoshop and generative tools to fake evidence of undercooked or contaminated food and claim refunds. One edited image of a chicken leg, altered to look raw, secured a $26.60 refund. In December 2025, DoorDash permanently banned a driver for submitting an AI-generated photo as proof of delivery for a package that never arrived. The image had been the seller’s weapon, then the buyer’s weapon, then the courier’s weapon. At that point, a photo in a transaction proves nothing to anyone.

Someone bought this agate-carved mug only to receive this instead

Rules arrived in early 2026, which is a sentence that sounds more decisive than the situation actually is. The FTC finalized guidelines around AI transparency in advertising, confirming that AI-generated product images that materially misrepresent a product’s appearance are deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. A dedicated AI enforcement unit launched in January 2026, with maximum penalties for disclosure violations set at $53,088 per violation. The EU went further with Article 50 of the EU AI Act, requiring AI-generated or manipulated content to carry machine-readable disclosure markers when it would otherwise appear authentic.

The honest read on all of this is that the rules exist on paper and the enforcement is genuinely uncertain. In December 2025, the FTC reopened and set aside its own 2024 order against Rytr, an AI review-writing tool, concluding that the original complaint had not met the Commission’s own standard. The same body writing the new rules walked back one of its previous ones. Whether the $53,088 penalty figure functions as a deterrent or a line item depends entirely on how often it gets applied, and under current leadership, that appetite is openly contested.

A whimsical photo of a book-inspired mug on the left. And the product shipped on the right.

By 2026, only 19% of consumers say they feel excited about AI, down from 50% two years earlier. Nearly 60% now doubt the authenticity of online content. More than half reduce their engagement the moment they suspect something is machine-generated, and 54% of Americans report what researchers are calling AI fatigue. Those numbers describe something that goes beyond a shopping inconvenience. The product image was, for a long time, a contract, a promise from seller to buyer that the thing in the photo and the thing in the box were the same thing. That contract has broken down, and the breakage runs in every direction. Sellers fabricate. Buyers manipulate. Couriers fake proof of delivery. The image, which the whole system of online commerce runs on, has become the least reliable part of the transaction.

The gorilla sofa was funny in 2024. It had the quality of a harmless glitch, a brief overlap between what AI could generate and what commerce could absorb. What it was actually marking was the beginning of a default posture: the assumption, now spreading across every platform that handles a product image, that the photo and the object have a negotiable relationship at best. Shopping has always involved some willingness to take a seller at their word. That willingness is running out.

The post AI Generates Thousands of Product Renders a Day. Almost None Ship. first appeared on Yanko Design.

The iPhone Ultra Feels Like the Opposite of What People Want From Apple Right Now

Posted on by

Something interesting happened when Apple released its most affordable Mac in years. The shelves emptied. Without the circus of a world-changing keynote or the pressure of a decade-long category bet, the MacBook Neo sold out. The sheer stillness around its success might be the loudest signal Apple’s product calendar has sent in a long time.

It would be easy to read that moment as a simple story about pricing. Cheaper product sells more. That is commerce 101. But the broader economic and design conversation is more interesting than that. The MacBook Neo did not succeed because it is cheap. It succeeded because it makes the value of owning a well-designed Apple laptop feel instantly, almost effortlessly, accessible. There is no fine print. No compromised chassis, no confusing lineup position, no asterisk that makes you feel like you settled. It is a real Mac at a price that does not require justification.

Designer: Apple

Contrast that with what Apple is likely building toward with the iPhone Fold. Foldables have been circling the conversation for years now, and every major Android manufacturer has taken a swing. Samsung’s Galaxy Z series, Google’s Pixel Fold, Motorola’s Razr revival; the form factor has matured enough to feel like a real category rather than a prototype. But it still has not broken into genuine mass-market territory. The numbers tell one story. The design tells another.

Fold a phone in half and you are immediately negotiating with physics. The crease is probably still there. The inner display, no matter how refined, still communicates “work in progress” to anyone running a finger across it. The hinge, while increasingly sophisticated, adds thickness and fragility that a flat slab simply does not carry. App ecosystems are still catching up. Battery life is still a compromise. These are not dealbreakers for a certain kind of buyer, but that buyer is the enthusiast, and enthusiasts alone do not make a product category.

Apple has historically entered categories late precisely because it waits until it can remove these friction points. The original iPhone did not invent the smartphone; it redesigned the experience of using one until the tradeoffs felt invisible. The AirPods did not invent wireless earbuds; they made pairing feel so frictionless that every alternative started feeling clunky by comparison. When Apple gets it right, the design makes the decision feel obvious. That is the standard the iPhone Fold will be held to, and right now, no foldable on the market has cleared that bar convincingly.

The Vision Pro is worth bringing into this conversation, carefully. Its commercial struggles were not purely a pricing problem, though the $3,499 entry point did not help. The deeper issue was behavioral. Wearing a spatial computer on your face asks something significant of the user; it separates you from the room, demands a specific posture, and narrows use cases in ways that feel limiting for most daily routines. Vision Pro is genuinely brilliant in ways that are hard to overstate, but brilliant and necessary are not the same thing. Expensive things can succeed when they feel necessary. When they feel like a solution searching for a problem, even the most sophisticated engineering loses the argument.

The iPhone Fold risks landing closer to Vision Pro than to MacBook Neo on that spectrum. Not because it will be a bad product, but because the “why” is still fuzzy for most consumers. A larger screen that folds into your pocket is appealing in theory. In practice, it means paying significantly more for a phone that is heavier, thicker when closed, and still slightly compromised in display continuity. The design wins have to be overwhelming to justify that list of concessions.

There is also the iPhone E to consider. Apple’s lower-cost iPhone has not exactly set records, which is where the argument gets complicated. It would be tempting to say consumers want value across the board, but the E’s underwhelming reception is not evidence against affordability; it is evidence that value without design conviction falls flat. A product can be inexpensive and still feel like a consolation prize, and no one wants to buy the version of Apple that does not quite believe in itself.

What the MacBook Neo proved is that conviction and accessibility are not opposites. When Apple makes something genuinely well-designed and prices it without apology, the market responds with conviction of its own. The lesson for the iPhone Fold is not to be cheap. It is to be undeniable. The crease needs to go, or come as close to invisible as current materials science allows. The hinge needs to feel architectural rather than mechanical. The software experience on the unfolded display needs to justify the real estate in ways that go well beyond “bigger screen.” The weight needs to stop reading as a penalty for wanting something different.

Until the iPhone Fold can walk into a room and make every other smartphone feel like it is leaving something on the table, the MacBook Neo’s sellout status is less a green light and more a mirror. Consumers are not rejecting premium products. They are rejecting expensive compromises. That is a distinction Apple knows better than anyone, and it is the only standard that will matter when the Fold finally arrives.

The post The iPhone Ultra Feels Like the Opposite of What People Want From Apple Right Now first appeared on Yanko Design.

How to Think like Antoni Gaudi – Turning Nature Into a Design System

Posted on by

How does an architect collaborate with gravity? What happens when a building’s support system is designed to branch and spread weight just like a forest canopy? These are the kinds of questions that drove Antoni Gaudi’s work. He approached architecture with the mind of a natural scientist, seeking to understand the fundamental forces that shape the world and then allowing those forces to generate his forms. His work poses a challenge to the conventional separation of engineering and aesthetics, of structure and ornament.

For Gaudi, the curve of a hanging chain held the secret to a perfect arch, a simple solution of pure tension that could be inverted to create a form of pure compression. This was his method: observe a principle in the physical world, understand its logic, and translate it into an architectural system. The result was an architecture that feels alive because it follows the same structural truths as living things. His buildings are not just inspired by nature; they are participants in its logic.

Think of nature as your structural engineer

The inside of the Sagrada Familia takes inspiration from a forest, with tree trunks holding the canopy-like ceiling up

The natural world is a library of solved problems. A tree trunk thickens at its base and its roots spread wide to resist wind and carry its own weight. A skeleton uses hollow bones to achieve maximum strength with minimum material. A seashell grows in a logarithmic spiral, a pattern of expansion that maintains its proportions at every scale. For Gaudi, these were not just beautiful shapes to be copied for decoration. They were demonstrations of profound structural intelligence, blueprints for how to build with efficiency and elegance.

This principle is most breathtakingly realized in the interior of the Sagrada Família. The massive stone columns that support the central nave do not rise straight to the ceiling. Instead, they lean and branch out near the top, forking like the boughs of a tree to distribute the immense weight of the vaults. The effect is that of a colossal stone forest, but the design is pure structural logic. Gaudi performed years of analysis on the load paths, ensuring each column and branch was precisely angled and sized to carry its load down to the foundation. He was not imitating a forest; he was borrowing its engineering.

By deriving his forms from the functional principles of nature, Gaudi created a sense of organic coherence that is absent in much of modern architecture. His buildings feel less like objects assembled from parts and more like organisms that have grown into their final form. The undulating facade of Casa Milà, known as La Pedrera or “the stone quarry,” seems to have been eroded by wind and water over centuries. This effect comes from an architecture that responds to imagined natural forces, creating a dynamism that feels both inevitable and alive.

Treat Geometry as a Living Language

Gaudi used gravity to plot the parabolic curves that would make the spires of the Sagrada Familia

It is tempting to view Gaudi’s work as purely intuitive, the product of a wild and untamed imagination. This perception, however, overlooks the rigorous mathematical discipline that underpins his most fantastical creations. He was a master of complex geometry, specifically a family of shapes known as ruled surfaces. These surfaces, which include hyperboloids, paraboloids, and helicoids, may sound complex, but they share a simple characteristic: they are curved forms that can be generated by moving a straight line through space.

This geometric toolkit was both poetic and profoundly practical. The massive windows and ceiling vaults of the Sagrada Família are perforated with hyperboloids. This shape allows light to enter and spread softly throughout the interior, avoiding harsh shadows and creating a luminous, even glow. The famous spiral staircases that feature in his work are helicoids, an elegant and efficient way to move through space. Because these complex curves could be defined by straight lines, they were also buildable. A contractor could construct the formwork for a seemingly impossible vault by using a series of simple, straight boards. This was practical genius, not just artistic vision.

This use of geometry formed another bridge between his architecture and the natural world. Ruled surfaces appear everywhere in nature, from the fibrous structure of muscles and tendons to the way soap films stretch between two rings. By employing this shared mathematical language, Gaudi created buildings that feel harmonious with the world around them. What looks dreamlike and organic in his work is often, upon closer inspection, geometrically exact and structurally optimized.

Think with Your Hands, Not Just a Pen

A look at Gaudi’s workshop, where he meticulously modeled with plaster before building

Traditional architecture has long been a discipline of two-dimensional representation. Buildings begin as plans, sections, and elevations, flat drawings that are later translated into a three-dimensional reality. Gaudi worked in the opposite direction. He was a sculptor of space who thought and designed in three dimensions from the very beginning. His workshop was filled not with blueprints, but with plaster, clay, and wire models. He believed that some problems of form, light, and structure could only be solved physically.

His famous hanging chain models are the most powerful example of this hands-on process, but his reliance on physical prototyping extended to nearly every aspect of his designs. He would sculpt plaster models of columns, vaults, and facades, iterating on their forms until they felt right both spatially and structurally. This allowed him to see how light would fall across a surface, how a space would feel as one moved through it, and how different forms would connect in a way that a flat drawing could never reveal. His was a process of discovery through making.

This method is precisely why his buildings feel so remarkably cohesive. The interiors and exteriors are not separate ideas assembled into a whole; they are part of one continuous, flowing volume. From the undulating facade of Casa Milà to the bone-like columns of the entrance to Park Güell, his work has a sculptural integrity that comes from being shaped in the round. He was not merely decorating a box. He was creating a complete, immersive spatial experience that was tested and refined through direct physical interaction.

A Building Should Tell a Story. Every Detail a Paragraph, Every Room a Chapter.

The Serpentine Bench at Park Guell is a massive, winding visual collage

For Gaudi, materials were not inert substances waiting to be shaped; they were expressive beings with their own character. He used stone for its weight and permanence, wrought iron for its ability to become a fluid, vine-like line, and ceramics for their capacity to capture light and color. The balconies of Casa Batlló are a perfect example, with their skeletal, bone-like stone supports and mask-like iron railings. The building feels less like a construction and more like a creature.

This material intelligence is on full display in his use of trencadís, the technique of creating mosaics from broken ceramic tiles. This was not just a decorative choice. It was an ingenious solution to the problem of cladding a complex, doubly-curved surface. Whole tiles would crack and fail, but a mosaic of broken pieces could flow seamlessly over any form. It was also an act of creative transformation, turning discarded tiles and plates from local factories into a vibrant, shimmering skin. The serpentine bench in Park Güell, a masterpiece of ergonomic design and public art, is brought to life by this technique.

These material and ornamental choices were never arbitrary; they were always in service of a larger narrative. Gaudi’s architecture is saturated with symbolism drawn from Catalan culture, Catholic theology, and the natural world. The entire facade of the Sagrada Família is a stone bible, with each portal dedicated to a different aspect of the life of Christ. The famous roof of Casa Batlló, with its iridescent, scale-like tiles and cross-topped turret, is a clear allusion to the legend of St. George and the Dragon, a powerful symbol of Catalan identity. The ornament is the story, fully integrated into the building’s form.

Borrow the Mindset, Not the Motifs

Gaudi’s sketches of sculptural details for the Sagrada Familia

The enduring power of Gaudi’s work offers profound lessons for designers today, but the greatest insights come from studying his process, not his style. To think like Gaudi is to ask deeper questions before beginning to design. It means studying the systems of the natural world, prototyping ideas physically, and allowing the properties of materials to guide the development of form. It means integrating structure, function, and meaning so completely that they become inseparable.

A superficial imitation of his work is a fundamental misreading of his genius, and nowhere is this temptation more apparent than in the age of artificial intelligence. AI image generators, when prompted to create something “in the style of Gaudi,” perform a sophisticated act of digital collage. They sample his signature motifs, the colorful trencadís, the skeletal balconies, the flowing lines, and recombine them into a plausible surface. The result might look like Gaudi, but it is an aesthetic echo, a skin-deep pastiche. What is absent is the intelligence, the why. The algorithm has no understanding of the catenary curve’s structural perfection, no concept of how a ruled surface can be used to sculpt light, and no sense of the narrative power behind his symbolism. It is a library of effects without a grasp of the causes.

To meaningfully think like Gaudi is a uniquely human act. It requires moving beyond the collage and embracing the cohesive system of thought that produced the work in the first place. The most unfortunate way to replicate Gaudi is to borrow his shapes without adopting his discipline. His work is a testament to the idea that the most expressive forms often arise from the most logical constraints. Gaudi’s ultimate legacy is his pursuit of a radical, integrated vision of design. In a world increasingly saturated with algorithmically generated images, his work serves as a powerful reminder that true creation is a unified whole. To think like Antoni Gaudi is to create something that feels less like an object that was built and more like an organism that has grown.

The post How to Think like Antoni Gaudi – Turning Nature Into a Design System first appeared on Yanko Design.

Apple said ‘AI’ exactly 28 times at WWDC 2026. Google mentioned it nearly 100 times at I/O.

Posted on by

By the end of this year’s big tech keynotes, one comparison stood out more than any product demo. Apple said “AI” 28 times at WWDC 2026. Google said it nearly 100 times at I/O 2026. Same industry, same race, same obsession, but two very different instincts about how to sell the next phase of computing.

Google’s keynote reflected the current rhythm of the AI industry, loud, relentless, and eager to stamp the term onto everything in sight. Apple’s presentation moved differently. It kept circling back to what people could actually do with the technology, how private it would be, and where it would fit into everyday routines. That softer framing may frustrate people who want Apple to move faster and compete harder. It may also be exactly why Apple’s pitch feels easier to absorb at a moment when audiences are already saturated with AI promises.

AI fatigue is real, and it has been building for a while. After years of keynotes, product launches, and press releases leading with the same two letters, the word has started to lose its grip on audiences. What once signaled breakthrough capability now signals marketing effort. When a company says “AI” 100 times in a single presentation, the listener stops hearing a technology and starts hearing a strategy. The signal becomes noise, and somewhere in that noise, the actual products get harder to see.

Apple’s approach at WWDC 2026 worked around that problem by reframing the conversation entirely. Instead of leading with technology, it led with moments. Siri finding a friend’s new address buried in a weeks-old message thread. A photo being reframed after the fact, as if you had stepped to the right before pressing the shutter. A restaurant bill split with Apple Cash by pointing a camera at it. These are small things, but they are the kind of small things that people actually think about during their day. Anchoring the keynote to those moments gave the technology a human scale that raw AI talk rarely achieves.

The branding reflects the same thinking. Apple calls it “Apple Intelligence,” a label that keeps the company name front and center while quietly sidestepping the overcrowded AI conversation. It is a deliberate choice, and it shows. Google’s keynote was structured around the technology itself, its power, its speed, its range. Apple’s keynote was structured around the people using it. That difference in framing shapes how audiences receive the same underlying capability, and Apple’s version is considerably easier to trust.

Privacy played a central role in building that trust. Apple returned to on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute repeatedly throughout WWDC, not as a footnote but as a feature. At a time when public concern about how AI companies handle personal data is growing steadily, that emphasis lands differently than it might have a few years ago. Google builds powerful models and serves them at enormous scale. Apple builds careful models and makes a point of telling you where your data goes and where it stays. For a meaningful portion of consumers, that distinction matters more than benchmark scores.

None of this means Apple is winning the AI race on capability. Google’s models are more powerful, more publicly accessible, and more deeply woven into the daily workflows of people around the world. Gemini’s reach across Search, Gmail, YouTube, and Android gives Google a distribution advantage that Apple’s ecosystem, for all its loyalty, cannot easily match. If the competition were judged purely on technical ambition and model performance, Google’s 100 mentions would feel earned.

But technology keynotes are not judged purely on technical ambition. They are judged on how they make audiences feel, what they make people want, and whether they leave the room energised or overwhelmed. On those terms, Apple’s 28 mentions of “AI” accomplished something that Google’s near-100 did not. They kept the word rare enough to mean something. Every time Apple said it, there was a feature attached, a privacy assurance nearby, and a use case grounded in daily life. The word carried weight because it was not being used to fill space.

The larger irony is that Apple may be the company best positioned to benefit from a backlash it did not entirely create. Google, Microsoft, Meta, and others have spent years flooding the conversation with AI language, and the fatigue that has followed is a byproduct of their own enthusiasm. Apple watched, built quietly, and showed up at WWDC 2026 with a keynote that treated restraint as a product decision. Whether that restraint reflects genuine strategic confidence or simply a capability gap dressed up in good marketing is the question the next few years will answer. For now, 28 versus 100 tells a story that Apple’s communications team could not have scripted better.

The post Apple said ‘AI’ exactly 28 times at WWDC 2026. Google mentioned it nearly 100 times at I/O. first appeared on Yanko Design.