Facebook-owned WhatsApp extends message deletion time
Facebook-owned WhatsApp extends message deletion time
Facebook-owned WhatsApp is changing the amount of time you have to delete messages you've sent for all recipients. According to WABetaInfo, since the release of WhatsApp beta for Android 2.18.69, the messaging app allows users 2¹² seconds (4,096 seconds, which is 68 minutes, 16 seconds) to take back a message you didn't want to send. It replaces it with a "this was deleted" message. The feature has since been added to the iOS and Windows Phone apps via updates.
First released last October, the "delete for everyone" feature used to allow you only 7 minutes to delete a message. The app had a flaw though, allowing people with modified versions of the app from third-party sites to delete messages as far back as three years.
This has been fixed as well, and when a revoke request comes in, it will make sure the message was sent within 24 hours. This time limit was decided in case the recipient of the message that is being deleted didn't have their phone on. If they don't turn their phone on in 24 hours, the message will not be deleted.
Amazon Prime Price Hike: There's Still Time to Lock In Your Rate for Another Year
Amazon Prime Price Hike: There's Still Time to Lock In Your Rate for Another Year
Amazon announced big fourth-quarter profits along with some bad news for customers earlier this month: The online retail giant is raising its annual membership price again. An Amazon Prime membership will soon cost $139 for annual subscribers, up from $119, and monthly members are looking at an increase from $13 to $15 ($156 to $180 for 12 months). For new accounts, the price hike goes into effect on Feb. 18. But if you already have an account, the cost won't increase until Mar. 25.
This bump marks the first time Amazon has raised prices on Amazon Prime since 2018, when the cost went from $99 to $119 per year (from $11 to $13 monthly). The premium subscription service originally launched in 2005 at $79 per year.
As of December 2021, about 172 million people subscribe to Amazon Prime, according to a report from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners. The report notes that Amazon Prime has added 30 million new subscribers each of the past two years.
Even though the price is rising, there are ways to maximize your current subscription or get in on the old price before it's gone. Read on to learn all about the Amazon Prime price change and how you can save money.
How much is Amazon raising the price of Prime?
For the majority of people, the price of Amazon Prime will change from $119 per year to $139, or from $13 monthly to $15.
Prices will also increase for students and other low-income subscribers. Prime Student members will soon pay $7.50 per month, or $69 per year. For recipients of Electronic Benefit Transfer and other qualified forms of government assistance, the monthly price will increase from $6 to $7.
When will the price of Amazon Prime change?
The price changes will take effect Feb. 18 for new Amazon Prime accounts. For existing accounts, the increased price will kick in on the first renewal payment after March 25.
How can I save money before the price of Amazon Prime changes?
If you were considering an Amazon Prime subscription, now's the time to do it. Prices will change for new accounts on Feb. 18. If you pay for a yearly subscription before then, you'll lock in the $119 yearly rate until 2023.
Current Amazon Prime members should take a look at their Amazon accounts to see if they are monthly or yearly subscribers. If you're a monthly subscriber and switch to a yearly subscription, you'll also lock in the $119 rate until next year.
Can I buy a future Amazon Prime membership with a gift card now?
Savvy bargain shoppers have noted that Amazon's "gift of Prime" service can be an effective method of extending the current price rate. If you buy a gift subscription of Amazon Prime before the price change and activate it when your existing subscription expires, you'll get another year at the $119 rate. If you sign up for a yearly account before Feb. 18 and buy another yearly gift subscription at $119, you won't be paying the new $139 yearly rate until 2024 (though you will be paying $238 upfront).
Why is Amazon raising the price of Prime?
Despite better-than expected fourth-quarter earnings, Amazon gave several reasons for the price hike in its press release, including more big-budget shows on Prime Video like The Wheel of Time, Jack Reacher and the upcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as well as its decadelong exclusive license to NFL's Thursday Night Football. The company also touted expanded availability for same-day delivery to 90 metropolitan areas in the US, free shipping for more items and more deals on products.
What services does Amazon Prime offer?
Amazon Prime originally launched with unlimited free two-day shipping for a large number of its products, and that main service remains its most popular benefit. However, Amazon Prime has since expanded its offerings and now includes many other benefits.
Here are the biggest services Amazon Prime provides:
Free two-day, next-day or same-day shipping
Free grocery delivery via Amazon Fresh
Discounts at Whole Foods
Free streaming video via Prime Video
Free streaming music via Amazon Music
Free magazines and books via Prime Reading
Unlimited photo storage on Amazon Photos
Visit the Amazon Prime info page for a full list of the services included in an Amazon Prime membership.
Who are Amazon Prime's competitors?
Pricier Amazon Prime subscriptions could make competing services more attractive, but there aren't a whole lot of them. Walmart Plus, which currently costs $98 per year, offers expedited delivery and groceries, but the superstore chain's service doesn't have the extensive TV shows, movies, music and games included with Amazon Prime.
Both Target and Walmart have tried to compete with Amazon Prime Day, a massively popular and yearly two-day sale for Amazon Prime members. Target has launched its own Target Deal Days and emphasizes that no membership fees are required. Similarly, Walmart began its own Deals for Days promotion for three days in June 2021.
Competitors like NewEgg Premier and Google Express encountered difficulties competing with Amazon Prime. NewEgg launched Premier in 2014 but shut it down in December 2019. Google Express also launched in 2019, but it lasted less than a year.
Disney Plus Grows to 137.7M Members After Netflix's Subscriber Skid
Disney Plus Grows to 137.7M Members After Netflix's Subscriber Skid
Disney Plus grew to 137.7 million subscribers as of April 2, Disney said Wednesday. That's a 33% increase from a year earlier, but more importantly it shows Disney Plus subscriber growth held up relatively well in its latest quarter -- climbing by 7.9 million from the previous three months -- soon after world leader Netflix shocked Hollywood with its first membership decline in a decade.
Netflix, the biggest subscription video service globally, has amassed 221 million subscribers, but last month it reported that its subscriber ranks shrank by 200,000 accounts in the first three months of this year -- the company's first overall decline in membership since the days when DVDs-by-mail were still a meaningful part of its business. Netflix's decline, and its expectation to lose even more members before the middle of the year, has buffeted Hollywood's confidence in streaming as the path to a sustainable future.
Disney Plus' latest net increase of 7.9 million subscribers in the latest period is more sedate than the 11.7 million jump in the previous one, but it's still stronger than the 2.1 million additions in the quarter before that. Disney also noted that Hulu subscribers grew to 45.6 million and that ESPN Plus membership rose to 22.3 million.
Up until last month, Netflix's years of unflagging growth pushed nearly all of Hollywood's major media companies to pour billions of dollars into their own streaming operations. These so-called streaming wars brought about a wave of new services, including Apple TV Plus, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount Plus and, of course, Disney Plus.
This headlong dive into streaming has profound implications for the future of Hollywood, but it has complicated how many services people must use -- and pay for -- to watch their favorite shows and movies online.
Early on, Disney Plus proved to be the standout success of the so-called streaming wars. Disney Plus' growth has outstripped that of all the new competitors, with one media analyst calling Disney Plus "one of the greatest product launches of all time."
Disney has forecast that Disney Plus will have between 230 million and 260 million global subscribers by the time the service is five years old, in late 2024.
Not all Disney Plus subscribers are created equal. In Europe and India, Disney Plus is bundled as part of a broader streaming offering. And in countries like India, the price of a subscription is a fraction of what it costs in other markets of the world.
Correction, 2:58 p.m. PT: The original version of this story reported an incorrect percentage increase in Disney Plus' subscribers from a year earlier. The increase was 33%.
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.
That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.
"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June.
This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content.
"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.
These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action.
The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.
Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."
The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.
Meet the sharents
Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)
You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)
Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."
Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."
But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.
The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.
This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child.
Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."
Naivete vs. exploitation
When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.
Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed.
Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said.
But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.
The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.
Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."
Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.
In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."
While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.
"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."
Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."
Turning points
Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting."
"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.
No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.
During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects).
One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."
All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child.
The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.
The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.
Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.
"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."
Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.
Jim Spellman/WireImage
This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments.
One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.
In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.
Privacy-centric parenting
Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."
When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.
Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."
For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.
"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."
But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."
Apple iPad (8th-gen, 2020) review: The best iPad value by far
Apple iPad (8th-gen, 2020) review: The best iPad value by far
The eighth-gen iPad feels familiar. It should be familiar: iPads don't change much. But the world certainly has. My whole family is trapped at home, working and going to school; remote connections are our whole lives. And iPads and Chromebooks are everywhere in our house.
My kids connect to their classes through devices: one on a Chromebook, the younger one on an iPad. iPads aren't ideal for school. They're convenient in a pinch, but not all apps work well, and not all input tools do, either.
Like
Faster processor handles iPadOS better
Supports Pencil and keyboard cases
Faster charger included in box
Don't Like
10.2 inch screen feels cramped with two-app multitasking
Doesn't support Pencil 2 or newer Magic Keyboard cases
Older front-facing camera, still not great for landscape Zooming
Entry-level 32GB storage too low to recommend
The basic iPad has been the "good enough" iPad for forever, while the Pro and Air have offered fancier features and better performance. This year, the iPad Air is getting a major revamp with a new processor, big display and USB-C, making it look much like an iPad Pro for less. But that new iPad Air starts at $599 (£579, AU$899). The new eighth-gen iPad I've been using, in the meantime, starts at $329 (£329, AU$499). Most stores will probably drop that to $300, and holiday sales could even bring it down further, if past years are any indication.
So what about this new 2020 entry-level iPad? It's an iPad, just like the one before. But it's a bit faster now. Whether you get one is basically the same question as before.
There's not a lot to say about this new 10.2-inch iPad. It's the same device as last year with one key improvement: Now it has an A12 processor instead of last year's A10. That's a big difference, and makes this a great time to consider the upgrade if you have an iPad that's several years old. Last year's basic iPad increased screen size and added a smart connector on the side, but it didn't change the processor. Upgrading is a major overhaul.
But you should also know that this basic iPad is a lot like last year's 2019 iPad Air and iPad Mini. So much so that, really, they're variants on the same device. (That 2019 Air is gone from Apple's website, but the Mini remains.) Think of it as last year's Air for less, and it's a good deal. But it's also an older iPad design. It still has a Touch ID home button and a headphone jack. And it still uses Lightning to charge and connect accessories, even though the upcoming iPad Air and current Pros use USB-C.
Here are the key similarities and differences between this new iPad and last year's Air and Mini:
The new eighth-gen iPad has the same processor and RAM as those iPads.
It also comes with less base storage (32GB).
The front-facing camera is worse on the eighth-gen iPad: 1.2 megapixels and 720p, versus 7 megapixels and 1080p on last year's Air and Mini.
The eighth-gen iPad works with the first-gen Pencil, just like those older iPads. That means you'll have to stick it in your iPad's Lightning port to charge -- and lose track of the little pop-off Pencil cap on the end in the process.
It works with the same Apple Smart Keyboard as the 2019 iPad Air, but that's not true of every Air case. Logitech's Combo Touch, for instance, has the same keyboard base but has two models to fit the Air and iPad's different thicknesses.
The included charger is better and faster: It's 20 watts, and the cable is now Lightning-to-USB-C, allowing it to work better with recent MacBooks.
The 10.2-inch display is a bit smaller and a hair less vivid than the 2019 Air. But it's still more than good enough.
Now that the iPad supports trackpads and mice, it's also more versatile for web apps and tools.
A Lightning charger, still, but a faster 20-watt one.
Scott Stein/CNET
So this all adds up to: The iPad Is Totally Fine. More than fine, I'd say. I'm writing this review on it using the smart keyboard (editing and prepping on CNET's content management system is still best on a laptop).
The iPad still isn't as useful as a Chromebook for a lot of school tools, at least in my house. App support is amazing, and Apple's streaming-friendly ecosystem also helps it double as a fantastic little TV. But multitasking and file saving are still weird and frustrating, even with iPadOS 14 improvements.
iPads in my house tend to be free screens we grab to do things, and this basic iPad fits that role fantastically.
Do you wait for the 2020 iPad Air?
The fancier Air comes out soon, and it looks nice. It's also nearly twice the price. As a result, it's not the same product at all. The Air looks like it would make a lovely gift for someone who needs a more powerful iPad for art or graphics work, and wants to save over the Pro. But for most people I bet this iPad will be fine.
Why is the camera on the side?
Most annoying iPad feature in 2020: The front-facing camera is still on the side in landscape mode, which is the mode most of us do chats and Zooms in. My face ends up off-angle and strangely centered, staring off into space. The iPad's camera is good enough, even in a step-down mode, and better than most laptops. But it's terrible for centering your face. And everything now is Zoom.
The Apple Pencil still goes in the Lightning port to charge.
Scott Stein/CNET
No great keyboard cases?
The Logitech Combo Touch has a trackpad, but its bulkier case and kickstand design aren't great for lap typing. It's perfectly usable, but at $150 it's an expensive accessory.
There's no Apple Magic Keyboard for this iPad, but you can use Apple's older smart connector Smart Keyboard cover, which is compact but lacks a trackpad.
Trackpad and mouse support is the best 2020 iPad feature
Just like every other recent iPad, with iPadOS 14 you can connect a mouse or trackpad (or get a trackpad-enabled keyboard case). I find it a huge help with editing and navigating, especially while the iPad is propped up on a desk with a kickstand case.
The smart keyboard case and Apple Pencil work with this iPad, but they cost extra and aren't the most recent versions.
Scott Stein/CNET
Battery life so far: Pretty good, as always
I was able to do a Zoom for an hour without making much of a dent on a full charge. I multitasked, read, watched shows, played games, worked on stories, and the battery held. No surprise, since the iPad's claim of around 10 hours of battery life has been the same for years, though it varies a few hours more or less depending on the model. I haven't done a battery benchmark but it's doing a full day with ease. The included faster charger is welcome.
iPadOS 14 is here now, and you might want to eventually try it on your existing iPad first before upgrading iPads.
Scott Stein/CNET
What I miss most from better iPads
Compared to the higher-end iPads, this one lacks the extra screen real estate on its sides. This larger-bezeled iPad is fine, but in multitasking modes with two apps open it starts to feel cramped. The next iPad Air (or iPad Pros) feel considerably more expansive, even if it's just an inch or so. Most laptops, TVs and other screened devices make a big deal about how narrow their screen bezels are. Still, this only really matters if you need to multitask -- keeping Slack and Gmail on screen at once, for example, or writing while following news feeds. It can be done on this iPad, but it works better with a second screen that's narrower (like an email, Twitter or Slack stream).
I also miss the TrueTone on the 2019 iPad Air and iPad Pro (and iPhone). It auto-adjusts color temperature, and I've really gotten used to it. This iPad's display seems harsher or bluer than I'm used to. It also lacks the fancy 120Hz refresh of the iPad Pro, but you might not notice the difference. The 2,160x1,620-pixel display is otherwise great.
If you're looking for an iPad and have no idea which to get, this is the safe iPad bet and the one you should probably buy. It officially starts at $329, but many stores sell it for $299, which can drop to $250 during sales. And, yeah, I'd recommend going to the $429 128GB model for that extra storage security blanket if you're considering downloading more than a handful of apps. If you're a pro, and need pro-level features, then you're already considering the iPad Pro or the upcoming improved iPad Air. For everyone else -- families, students, anyone looking to pick up a good versatile extra screen -- this is where you're likely to start looking, and also where you're likely to end up.
Is Apple's Beats buy just a remix of HTC's earlier mistake?
Is Apple's Beats buy just a remix of HTC's earlier mistake?
Beats Chairman Jimmy Iovine, HTC CEO Peter Chou, and Dr. Dre. HTC, Beats
Editor's note: Apple on May 28 confirmed that it's buying Beats for $3 billion.
A high-flying smartphone manufacturer is buying the much-ballyhooed Beats music brand in an effort to earn some street cred.
No, I'm not talking about the purported deal between Apple and Beats, which the Financial Times reported earlier Thursday. I'm referring to HTC taking a majority stake in Dr. Dre's company in a deal announced a little more than three years ago.
Investors and company observers alike scratched their head at the $300 million combination, with many, including this reporter, critical about whether the deal would lead to anything fruitful. Well, Apple may have upped the ante with a reported $3.2 billion offer for Beats.
Beats declined to comment. CNET has contacted Apple and HTC for comment, and we will update the story when the companies respond.
Later on Thursday, singer-songwriter Tyrese Gibson posted a video and photo to his Facebook page that offered potential corroboration of an Apple acquisition. The caption on the photo read "Dr Dre ON THE night his deal went public that he did with Apple 3.2 BILLION!!!!" (By Friday morning, the video and photo were no longer viewable on Gibson's Facebook page.)
To get a sense of what Apple might do with Beats, it's critical to see what HTC did (and didn't) do.
HTC's acquisition of the Beats stake stemmed from CEO Peter Chou's love of music and obsession over the audio quality of his devices. After announcing the deal, Chou expressed a desire to integrate Beats' audio experience into its phones.
HTC's Rezound. HTC
HTC created the music-centric Rezound, which came with a pair of Beats earbuds, as part of an exclusive deal with Verizon Wireless. Marquee smartphones such as its HTC One X would have the Beats logo emblazoned on their back cover.
Unfortunately, no one seemed to care.
The Rezound was one of many flops that HTC released in 2011. Part of the problem: the cost of the headphones meant the phone was retailing at a subsidized price of $300, which was a no-no when marquee smartphones were selling for $200.
While the HTC One X was a critically praised phone, it couldn't stand up to the marketing might of the Samsung Galaxy S3. And those who did buy the phone weren't buying it for the Beats brand.
By July 2012, it was clear the deal wasn't working out. HTC said it sold half of its stake back to Beats for $150 million. CNET reported that HTC wasn't meeting all of its financial commitments to Beats.
At that point, HTC was beginning its downward spiral, complete with management shakeups, shrinking market share, and a tumbling stock price.
HTC in September sold off the remaining stake in Beats for $265 million, netting a slight gain on its investment. But given the hype surrounding the original announcement, it's noticeable for how little HTC did with Beats.
From left, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, Sprint CEO Dan Hesse, Harman CEO Dinesh Paliwal, and HTC CEO Peter Chou at an event last week. Sarah Tew/CNET
Last week, HTC unveiled a special Harman Kardon edition of its HTC One M8, complete with special earbuds and audio software. The HTC One M8, like its predecessor, also comes with front-facing "Boomsound" speakers to better project music and movies. Chou told CNET that it was part of his commitment to improving the audio quality of his phones.
HTC was able to achieve all this without ever making an investment in a company.
If Apple were to buy Beats, it would certainly be in a different situation and have more to play with. In addition to the Beats headphone line, Dr. Dre's company recently launched a subscription streaming service called Beats Music, which AT&T offers on its smartphones. And Apple is a much larger company with dramatically more reach and brand recognition than HTC.
But it's telling that the same kind of head-scratching pontification that occurred when HTC announced its deal is happening all over again.
Update May 9 at 5:25 a.m. PT:Added details of Tyrese Gibson's Facebook posting regarding Dr. Dre and Apple.
Will crypto be the Super Bowl's biggest winner? This week's top cryptocurrency news
Will crypto be the Super Bowl's biggest winner? This week's top cryptocurrency news
Welcome to Nonfungible Tidbits, a weekly roundup of cryptocurrency, NFTs and their related realms.
Our lead story is Sunday's Super Bowl and all the crypto ads viewers will see. And, while we're on the topic of crypto and pro sports, the Washington Nationals baseball team also partnered with a decentralized autonomous organization. We'll cover the Nats' sponsorship deal and what a DAO is.
This week's roundup also features the Justice Department's biggest bust in history, as well as a new coalition of crypto companies that aims to fight market manipulation.
In other news, the World Wildlife Fund decided to shutter its NFT project after a backlash due to the tokens' potential environmental impact.
Here's what caught our eyes this week. Stay tuned for more next week.
Crypto firms gear up for the big game
Brittany Murray via Getty Images
No fewer than five crypto ads are reportedly scheduled to air at Sunday's Super Bowl, where the Los Angeles Rams face off against the Cincinnati Bengals. According to multiple media reports, FTX, Coinbase, eToro and Crypto.com are expected to have ads during the big game's US broadcast, while Toronto-based Bitbuy reportedly purchased an ad for the Canadian broadcast.
Advertising during the Super Bowl, one of the most watched television events of the year, is eternally expensive. This year, a 30-second spot is going for about $6 million -- a new record and a small fortune for some businesses.
Tech companies have long used the Super Bowl to enhance brand recognition. During the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s, a host of fledgling firms advertised during the big game. Perhaps the most memorable was a 2000 commercial by Pets.com, an early e-commerce company that went bust just a few months later.
An expected 117 million Americans will tune in to the match this Sunday. With crypto going mainstream -- 16% of Americans have invested or used cryptocurrency, according to Pew Research Center -- the Super Bowl may prove an effective way to reach an even broader audience.
Washington Nationals team up with a DAO. What's a DAO again?
G Flume via Getty Images
It looks like baseball is trying to keep up with football's crypto enthusiasm. With spring training right around the corner, the Washington Nationals baseball team announced a partnership with Terra, a cryptocurrency enterprise. Fans will be able to use Terra's UST stablecoin at the team's ballpark, which will feature prominent Terra promotions near home plate.
Terra is a DAO, or a decentralized autonomous organization that makes decisions via a consensus vote using digital tokens on a blockchain. The Terra DAO voted on the sponsorship, and the organization paid the Nats nearly $40 million.
The Nats-Terra deal follows last November's deal between LA Angels star Shohei Ohtani and FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange. Ohtani, who made history last season as the first player ever selected as both an All-Star pitcher and hitter in the All-Star game, signed on to be FTX's global ambassador and took a stake in the company.
Last year, FTX also became Major League Baseball's official cryptocurrency exchange -- the first deal of its kind between an American pro sports league and a crypto exchange.
A $3.6B bitcoin seizure is Justice Department's biggest bust ever
Bill Clark
The Justice Department seized $3.6B in bitcoin from a digital wallet held by a couple living in Manhattan, the department said on Tuesday. The suspects, who allegedly were trying to launder the crypto loot, are a husband and wife team, one of whom was an aspiring rapper on YouTube. The seized bitcoin has been linked to the 2016 hack of Bitfinex, when hackers spirited almost 120,000 bitcoin from the cryptocurrency exchange. The bust is the largest in the department's history.
Read CNET's full story on it here.
Canada accounting giant buys bitcoin and ether
Mark Garlick, Science Photo Library via Getty Images
KPMG Canada, the Canadian division of the Big Four accounting firm, said Monday it had added cryptocurrency to its holdings. KPMG Canada didn't specify the amount of crypto it had purchased but said it had also bought carbon-offset credits to "maintain a net-zero carbon transaction." Carbon offsetting refers to the practice of buying credits from another company or organization that's engaged in greenhouse gas reduction, with the credits representing a kind of commoditized carbon reduction.
Crypto firms form coalition
Getty Images
Coinbase, Circle, and 15 other crypto companies founded a new coalition, according to an announcement this week. The Crypto Market Integrity Coalition aims to address the issues raised by New York Attorney General Letitia James, SEC Chair Gary Gensler and other officials, who worry the industry is plagued by market manipulation. The coalition requires members to sign a written pledge, and according to the coalition's website, more than 350 organizations have already joined.
Thanks for reading. We'll be back with plenty more next week. In the meantime, check out this story on what quantum hackers could mean for bitcoin by CNET's Monisha Ravisetti.
