If you’ve written content such as blog posts, articles etc that you’d like to check thoroughly for any mistakes and hear more clearly how it sounds being read back, try using Google Translate. Here’s how.

– Go to Google Translate.

– Copy and paste your content (up to 5,000 characters) into the left-hand window and select English as the language.

– Click on the speaker (‘Listen’) icon in the bottom left of the left-hand window.

– Listen to your content being read back, keeping an ear out for any changes you’d like to make.

The so-called ‘Batterygate’ iPhone throttling case has been given the go-ahead by UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal which could mean a near $1 billion (£853 million) damages payout to affected Apple customers.

What Is ‘Batterygate’? 

Batterygate refers to a 2017 software update to iPhones by Apple that customers reported had slowed older iPhones down. It was alleged by some at the time that this had been an intentional move designed to motivate customers to buy a new battery or a new iPhone.

Which iPhones? 

The older models of iPhone (released between 2014 and 2016) affected by slowing following the update were the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone SE.

Claims Gained Momentum

Claims by customers that their iPhones have been slowed by the update were supported by comparative performance tests of different models of the iPhone 6S on Reddit and Technology website Geekbench.

As customers’ concerns mounted and received more press, Apple publicly admitted that its software update was responsible for the slowing, Apple apologised to customers in January 2018, and in 2020 agreed to pay $113m (£85m) in the hope of putting an end to the ‘Batterygate’ scandal.

Also, in France in early 2020, Apple was fined $27 million by the country’s consumer watchdog for throttling the battery on older iPhones and it’s been reported that Apple had many (66) smaller batterygate lawsuits against it in the US, settling for $500 million in 2020, and agreeing (in a separate case) to pay out $113 million to 34 US States for the throttling of iPhone 6 and 7 devices.

Power Management Tool 

Apple’s explanation of the iPhone update was that it was a power management tool to help combat performance issues and to help prolong the life of customer devices by managing their ageing lithium-ion batteries and preventing the inconvenience of a sudden and unexpected shutdown. Apple said (in 2018) that it would never intentionally “degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.”

Justin Gutmann’s Lawsuit 

However, in 2022, consumer champion Justin Gutmann filed a lawsuit against Apple over the matter. In the lawsuit Mr Gutman claimed that hardware used by Apple in seven affected iPhone models couldn’t cope with the demands of the device’s processor and operating system. Mr Gutmann argued that Apple introduced the software tool in a concealed way to hide the fact that iPhone batteries may not have been able to run the latest iOS software at the time.

Mr Gutmann also alleged that the “power management tool” pushed as part of the iPOS update had slowed the performance of their phones leading to many owners having to pay for replacement batteries or buy new phones. Mr Gutmann alleged that using the update to force people to pay for replacement batteries or entirely new phones amounted to Apple exploiting its market dominance in the UK. It was alleged that Apple’s apology and offer of a payout were essentially a plan to save Apple the cost of having to recall products and provide replacement batteries, by making users seek to buy their own new batteries or new iPhones after noticing a slowdown (following the update).

Mr Gutmann, therefore, decided to launch his own lawsuit, seeking around £768m (now £850m) in damages for up to 25 million UK iPhone users.

Case To Go Ahead 

Now, for the latest development in ‘Batterygate’ Mr Gutmann’s near $1 billion lawsuit on behalf of the affected owners has been cleared to proceed to court by UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal.

With around 25 million customers affected, if the case doesn’t go Apple’s way, all the affected owners will be entitled to a compensation payout from Apple for each model of iPhone that they owned that was subject to slowing caused by the update.

In its summary, The Competition Appeal tribunal highlights how the collective proceedings order (CPO): “seeks to combine, on an opt-out basis, the claims of consumers and business entities who have purchased, or were gifted, certain Apple iPhone models in particular iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus (“Affected iPhones”)”.  It also highlights how “Apple’s application to strike out the claim was dismissed” (Apple tried to have the case thrown out), and that the Tribunal has now “decided that the requirements of a CPO are met in this case.” 

The Tribunal did, however, also note that “aspects of the claim lack clarity” which it says, “impacts both the questions of the existence of abuse and the manner in which loss to the class is to be assessed.”  In other words, there’s likely to be some room for Apple’s lawyers (backed by the huge resources of the company) to mount a persuasive argument against the allegations made in the lawsuit.

Following the news that the lawsuit has been given permission in the UK, Mr Guttmann has been quoted as saying: “I’m heartened that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has given the nod for our groundbreaking claim to proceed to a full trial. This paves the way for millions of consumers, who were left paying for battery replacements or new phone models, to receive the compensation they deserve.”  

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Batterygate has been a blot on Apple’s reputation that has been hanging around for years now, resulting in it having to settle many claims in the US already and pay a £27 million fine in France. Although Apple is a multi-trillion-dollar company with considerable financial and legal resources, it has been (and could still be) quite an expensive episode for the company, plus the fact that it’s paid out (settled) with many in the US could point to the fact that it may lose or may agree a sizeable settlement in the UK.

The UK lawsuit which has just been given the go-ahead, and which rests on whether Apple essentially exploited its market dominance in the UK could, therefore, potentially see 25 million UK iPhone users get compensation without having to take any individual action (it’s an opt-out claim on their behalf) and see Apple possibly pay as much as $1.6 billion ($1 billion / £853 is just the midpoint figure).

With Apple (a company that makes 80 per cent of its revenue from new devices) just launching its new iPhone 15 (which had an overheating issue that required an update), it may be very keen for batterygate to disappear as soon as possible which the settling of this lawsuit may be another major step in achieving. What with the iPhone 15 overheating issue, iPhone 12 sales recently being banned in France over radiation fears, and the newly launched iOS 17 needing quick fix for three critical vulnerabilities, Apple may feel that it needs a break from very public bad news stories.

All that said, however, at the heart of this case are millions of owners whose expensive vital communication devices were suddenly slowed, causing them considerable inconvenience, perhaps causing stress and costing them money to find replacement batteries or even going to expense of buying a new phone. It wouldn’t be the first time that a giant, dominant tech company has been accused of exploiting its market dominance at the expense of customers, and it now remains to be seen whether affected UK customers in this case are finally entitled to compensation and whether Apple will receive another blow to its reputation in the final rounds of batterygate.

Following the UK government hosting the first major global summit on AI safety at historic Bletchley Park, we look at some of the key outcomes and comments.

Summit 

The UK hosted the first major global AI Safety Summit on the 1 and 2 November at Bletchley Park, the historic centre of the UK’s WWII code breaking operation, where the father of modern computer science Alan Turing worked. The summit brought together international governments (of 28 countries plus the EU), leading AI companies, civil society groups and experts in research.

The aims of the summit were to develop a shared understanding the risks of AI, especially at the frontier of development, and to discuss how they can be mitigated through internationally coordinated action, and of the opportunities that safe AI may bring.

Some notable attendees included Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US vice president Kamala Harris, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, and Wu Zhaohui, Chinese vice minister of science and tech.

Key Points 

The two-day summit, which involved individual speakers, panel discussions, and group meetings covered many aspects of AI safety. Some of the key points to take away include:

– UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced in his opening speech that he and US Vice President Kamala Harris had already decided that the US and UK will establish world-leading AI Safety Institutes to test the most advanced frontier AI models. Mr Sunak said the UK’s Safety Institute will develop its evaluations process in time to assess the next generation of models before they are deployed next year.

– Days before the summit (thereby setting part of the agenda for the summit), US President Joe Biden issued an executive order requiring tech firms to submit test results for powerful AI systems to the US government prior to their release to the public.  At the summit, in response to this, UK tech secretary, Michelle Donelan, made the point that this may not be surprising since most of the main AI companies are based in the US.

– The U.S. and China, two countries often in opposition, agreed to find global consensus on how to tackle some of the complex questions about AI, such as how to develop it safely and regulate it.

– In a much-publicised interview with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, 𝕏’s Elon Musk described AI as “the most disruptive force in history” and said that “there will come a point where no job is needed”. Mr Musk added: “You can have a job if you wanted to have a job for personal satisfaction. But the AI would be able to do everything.”  Mr Musk said that as a result of this: “One of the challenges in the future will be how do we find meaning in life.” It was also noted by some that Mr Musk had been using his X platform to mock politicians at the AI summit ahead of his headlining interview with the UK Prime Minister. Mr Musk’s comments were perhaps nor surprising given that he was one of the many signatories to an open letter earlier in the year calling for a moratorium on the development of AI more advanced than OpenAI’s GPT-4 software. That said, Mr Musk has just announced the launch of a new AI chatbot called ‘Grok,’ a rival to ChatGPT and Bard, which has real-time knowledge of the world via the 𝕏 platform, and Mr Musk says has been “designed to answer questions with a bit of wit and has a rebellious streak.” 

– As highlighted by Ian Hogarth, chair of the UK government’s £100m Frontier AI Taskforce, “there’s a wide range of beliefs” about the severity of the most serious risks posed by AI, such as the catastrophic risks of technology outstripping human ability to safeguard society (the existential risk). As such, despite the summit, the idea that AI could wipe out humanity remains a divisive issue. For example, on the first day of the summit, Meta’s president of global affairs and former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said that AI was caught in a “great hype cycle” with fears about it being overplayed.

– Different countries are moving at different speeds with regards to the regulatory process around AI. For example, the EU started talking about AI four years ago and is now close to passing an AI act, whereas other countries are still some way from this point.

Criticism 

Although the narrative around the summit was that it was a great global opportunity and step in the righty direction, some commentators have criticised the summit as being a missed opportunity for excluding workers and trade unions, and for simply being an event that was dominated by the already dominant big tech companies.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The speed at which AI technology is moving, mostly ahead of regulation, and with its opportunities and threats (which some believe to be potentially catastrophic), and the fact that no real global framework for co-operation in exploring and controlling AI made this summit (and future ones), inevitable and necessary.

Although it involved representatives from many countries, to some extent it was overshadowed in the media by the dominant personality representing technology companies, i.e. Elon Musk. The summit highlighted divided opinions on the extent of the risks posed by AI but did appear to achieve some potentially important results, such as establishing AI Safety Institutes, plus the US agreeing with China on something for a change. That said, although much focus has been put on the risks posed by AI, it’s worth noting that for the big tech companies, many of whose representatives were there, AI is something they’re heavily invested in as the next major source of revenue and to compete with each other, and that governments also have commercial, as well as political interest in AI.

It’s also worth noting critics’ concerns that the summit was really a meeting of the already dominant tech companies and governments and not workers, many of whom may be most directly affected by continuing AI developments. With each week, it seems, there’s a new AI development, and whether concerns are over-hyped (as Nick Clegg suggests) or fully justified, nobody really knows as yet.

Many would agree, however, that countries getting together to focus on the issues and understand the subject and its implications and agree on measures that could mitigate risks and maximise the opportunities and benefits of AI going forward is positive and to be expected at this point.

A new survey from CyberArk has revealed that increased workloads caused by a surge in cyber threats and attacks has led to 59 per cent of UK senior cyber security professionals facing burnout.

Cyber Crime Levels High 

The results of the survey highlight the growing workload pressure on cyber security professionals because in just the past 12 months alone, a staggering 80 per cent of UK organisations have experienced a ransomware attack, a 10 per cent increase on last year. Also, almost half of those affected (47 per cent) have opted to pay the ransom (at least twice) to enable recovery.

Workload And Other Challenges 

In order to protect businesses from growing threat levels, cyber security teams have, therefore, been required to work long hours whilst facing the challenges caused by the limited budgets and resources that are the result of economic pressures, as well as the challenges of a skills gap and global shortage of cybersecurity professionals. For example, a recent ISC2 report shows that there was a 3.4 million global shortage of cyber security professionals last year, compared with a total cyber workforce of 4.7 million.

Other Supporting Research 

Other research that supports the plight of under-pressure cyber security workers includes a Chartered Institute of Information Security (CIISec) survey that found almost a quarter of security practitioners work more than 48 hours per week, and Gartner research (2023) highlighting how high levels of stress could see nearly half of security leaders switching careers by 2025.

Taking A Break Or Leaving The Profession 

Consequently, even though cyber security professionals need to be performing at their absolute best, instead they are experiencing burnout (according to the CyberArk survey), and are choosing to either take a break from work to concentrate on their wellbeing or leaving the professions, thereby adding to the lack of security professionals in businesses, increasing the vulnerability of those businesses to cyber-attacks.

More Than Two-Thirds Of Senior Decision Makers Affected

CyberArk’s survey shows, for example, that 66 per cent of C-level executives (senior cyber defence decision makers in businesses) feel that they are experiencing burnout, which raises concerns about their ability to deal with the increasing and evolving threats effectively.

For example, as David Higgins, senior director, of the field technology office at CyberArk puts it: “Burnout is alarming in that context, because it impairs the ability to defend their organisation. One wrong decision or missed signal can open the door to reputational and monetary damage for an organisation.” 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The findings from CyberArk paint a stark picture for UK businesses, showing the front-line against cybercrime is wearing thin. The apparent burnout epidemic among cybersecurity professionals is not only a health crisis but a strategic business vulnerability. When these specialists are overworked and stressed, their capacity to guard against cyber threats is compromised, and as a result, the risk to business operations, sensitive data, and company finances escalates.

UK companies should, therefore, take immediate steps to prioritise the well-being of their security teams. This means cultivating an environment where work-life balance is possible and supported by management. It also includes re-evaluating workloads to ensure they are sustainable and providing access to mental health resources. These measures may help in maintaining a vigilant and capable cybersecurity workforce.

Equally critical is addressing the shortage of cybersecurity professionals through targeted talent development and diversified recruitment strategies. Training programs and professional development opportunities can be powerful incentives for both recruitment and retention, and recruits that can grow with the company.

C-level executives (cyber security decision-makers) experiencing burnout themselves need to set the right tone for the organisation’s work culture, for example by openly acknowledging the issue and advocating for sufficient resources. This could (in some measure) help bring the change that reinforces the company’s defence against cyber threats.

Preventing cybersecurity burnout, therefore, is more than a human resources issue and is an essential investment in a business’s operational security. As cyber threats increase, it is clear that protecting the protectors through a compassionate and comprehensive approach to workforce management is not just beneficial but necessary for sustaining business integrity in the digital age.

US Startup Zephyr’s claim that it has solved smartphone GPS positioning problems through a network and software-based solution with sub-60cm accuracy has attracted $3.5 million seed funding.

The Issue 

Even though consumers have been putting growing demands on GPS through their increasing use of mobile devices and wearables, and many more businesses and services have become more reliant on it, GPS hasn’t had any major updates for more than 20 years, meaning that it is prone to errors, inaccuracy, and can sometimes be unreliable.

GPS accuracy on phones has traditionally suffered from various issues which affect the precision of location data. For example, problems like signal blockage from buildings, natural landscape features, or indoor and underground settings can prevent GPS signals from reaching a phone effectively. One key issue highlighted by Zephyr is “multi-path errors,” where a signal from a GPS satellite reaches a receiver more than once, caused by signals bouncing off buildings or other large objects, thereby confusing smartphones with a single antenna.

Also, atmospheric conditions and satellite geometry can play a role as signals can be distorted by the atmosphere, and if satellites are poorly positioned relative to each other, accuracy drops.

Phones can also face hardware limitations, e.g. the quality of the GPS receiver and the processing software can introduce errors. Assisted GPS, which uses network data to enhance location locking, can experience problems if network information is imprecise or outdated and electromagnetic interference from other devices can affect signal clarity.

The integration of additional satellite systems such as GLONASS, Galileo, and Beidou with traditional GPS, along with software improvements, have helped the everyday location accuracy of modern smartphones in recent times, nevertheless it’s often still not accurate enough for users.

The Implications 

Inaccurate GPS on phones can be frustrating for users by causing navigation problems, leading to lost time and potential safety concerns when driving or walking. It can also disrupt location-based services such as ridesharing, food delivery, or (more seriously) emergency assistance, where precise location information is crucial.

For those relying on GPS for fitness activities, inaccuracies can spoil exercise tracking and goals. Also, inaccurate GPS can affect social experiences by misplacing geotags on social media and leading to mistakes in personal and professional mapping efforts. While generally reliable, the limitations of phone GPS can, therefore, cause inconveniences in daily life.

Zephr’s CEO Sean Gorman summarises the problems that poor GPS accuracy can cause, saying: “GPS is an essential technology for so many services we now rely on, and yet it is plagued by inaccuracy. This poses many challenges for businesses and consumers, and it will hamper the growth of developing technologies like augmented reality and autonomy.”  

Mr Gorman points out the benefits of a solution that can improve accuracy, saying: “Improved accuracy in GPS can translate into millions of dollars in economic benefit, but for us, it’s about more than just money. A more accurate GPS system can also improve daily routines and personal safety, from preventing navigational errors to creating safer collision-avoidance systems in vehicles and enabling more advanced search-and-rescue efforts.” 

Zephr’s Solution 

Colorado-based Zephr claims that its network-based solution to GPS inaccuracy has achieved sub-60cm GPS accuracy in field trials (a level of accuracy typically not seen in consumer GPS solutions) using nothing more than existing satellites and mobile devices networked together to share correction data. The company says its “breakthrough” networked GPS solution enhances accuracy by 5X-10X (<1m) for mobile devices and wearables.

Zephr also claims that its solution (which is purely software-based and doesn’t require hardware changes to a device or a new chipset or firmware) will be able to increase accuracy in dense urban environments, thereby solving problems caused by building-bounce and blocked line-of-sight.

How? 

In short, Zephr’s system creates a multi-receiver system, i.e. it turns users’ mobile devices into base stations which generate error corrections. Interconnected GNSS (global navigation satellite system) measurements across multiple devices thereby enables Zephr’s system to not only eliminate common errors and inaccuracies, but also to bring a stable and reliable signal with less risk of interference.

The Benefits

The benefits of this software/network-based solution are:

– It’s fast and easy – billions of existing mobile devices can easily upgrade their GPS accuracy directly out of the box, with no need for hardware solutions.

– Easy integration – as a standalone SDK product it will allow any mobile app to easily upgrade GPS accuracy by embedding the feature.

– It’s cheap – it uses existing satellites and software.

– Economic and human value – it could create cost savings, create opportunities in many industries, and unlock new markets in new/emerging ones, e.g. navigation, delivery/logistics, rideshare, agriculture, advertising, search and rescue services, location-based apps, collision avoidance systems, autonomous vehicles (robot/drone delivery systems), augmented reality, location-based gaming, and smart cities.

– It retains privacy – Zephyr says: “User information is always minimised, anonymised, short-lived, never sold or transferred, and protected from third-party access.” 

Funding 

The simplicity and accuracy of the solution (plus its many possibilities) have meant that Zephr has been able to attract $3.5 million of funding in a seed round led by Space Capital and First Spark Ventures. It’s been reported that this significant amount of funding will help support Zephr’s GTM strategy as it goes for rapid growth over the next year.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Zephyr’s GPS accuracy solution could represent a significant milestone for businesses across a broad spectrum of industries. With the claim of solving GPS inaccuracies using software, Zephyr’s technology promises to deliver sub-60cm location precision, a game-changer for any business reliant on geolocation data. This could mean enhanced reliability and fewer errors for logistics and delivery services, ensuring packages reach their destinations more efficiently, and with greater customer satisfaction. For the rideshare and transport sectors, improved accuracy will lead to quicker, more reliable pickups and drop-offs, optimising route planning and saving on fuel and time – in short, service improvements and cost substantial savings.

Emerging markets and technologies also stand to gain substantially from Zephyr’s innovation. For example, agricultural businesses can employ more precise GPS for planting, harvesting, and monitoring equipment, which can lead to better resource management and yield prediction. In advertising, location-based marketing could become more targeted and effective, with the potential to engage consumers based on precise location data.

For vital services like search and rescue, the benefits are potentially lifesaving, with the ability to pinpoint locations swiftly and accurately (when every second counts). Autonomous vehicles, including drones and robots for delivery systems could also benefit by being able to navigate more safely and efficiently, reducing the risk of accidents and enabling them to operate in more complex environments. This could help advance this whole new field, e.g. Amazon’s robots and its new delivery drones. The augmented reality and gaming industries could also see an uptick in immersion and gameplay possibilities, as real-world accuracy becomes a stable foundation for virtual experiences, thereby helping to create new products and opportunities and generate more revenue.

There may also be an important knock-on effect of this precision for smart city initiatives. For example, urban planning, infrastructure management, and public safety could all be revolutionised with accurate, reliable geolocation data at their core. The implications for the Internet of Things (IoT) are also vast, with the potential for devices to communicate and operate with a new level of location intelligence.

Zephyr’s commitment to privacy is also likely to be promising for businesses using the technology and for more privacy-conscious consumers.

Zephyr’s fix and what essentially represents the first big (and necessary) change to a GPS system in 20+ years that’s been increasingly in demand could see widespread integration into countless applications. This could inject efficiency and accuracy into current services while catalysing the development of new ones. As a result, businesses that adapt quickly to this technology could see significant ROI, not only through direct economic benefits but also via enhanced customer trust and brand reputation. The $3.5 million in seed funding reflects investor confidence in Zephyr’s solution, suggesting a ripe market ready for businesses harnessing the power of improved GPS technology.

November 10, 2004 : What’s In a Name?

On November 9th 2004, the well-known web-browser ‘Firefox’ was released, although it had earlier been called something entirely different altogether.

Originally created in 2002 by members of the Mozilla community, the browser had the codename “Phoenix”. This was supposed to reflect the project’s aim to “rise from the ashes of Netscape Navigator” after it was defeated in the browser wars by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. However, a software company named Phoenix Technologies meant there were trademark issues, so it was renamed.

The next (brief) iteration was “Firebird”, which is a more literal expression of what a Phoenix is. However, once again this led to conflicts with another software project.

Ultimately,  “Firefox” was selected. However, this animal has nothing to do with foxes, even though the logo suggests otherwise. It is, in fact, the colloquial term for the red panda, which was adopted as the mascot for the project following its renaming. A red panda was chosen because, at the time, relatively few people knew about this animal and was therefore less likely to cause yet more trademark issues! As an aside, a red-panda’s habitat is around China and as a species they are related to skunks, weasels and raccoons and so they are completely unrelated to giant Pandas (which are actually a type of bear).

As far as naming is concerned, the plot thickens because the community called Mozilla was originally so-called because ‘Mozilla’ was originally the code name for the Netscape Navigator web browser, and it was a portmanteau created from the words “Mosaic” and “Godzilla.” The name was chosen to signal Netscape’s goal to be the “Mosaic killer,” as Mosaic was the dominant web browser at the time Netscape was being developed. The addition of “Godzilla” to the mix signified the hope that Netscape would become a powerful and formidable player in the browser space, much like the fictional monster. Phew!

Currently, as of October 2023, the browser share of Firefox is around 3.06% (i.e. about 90% down from its prime in 2009 when it had about 32% browser share). So, it looks like Firefox’s best days are behind it but who knows what’s around the corner?