Connect with us

Published

on

Apple’s new iPad Pro comes in two sizes, and starts at $999. It also has a new add-on case called Smart Keyboard that makes it feel like a laptop.

Apple‘s new iPad Pro and iPad Air models launch Wednesday. I’ve been testing the new iPad Pro for several days and what I found is that it’s a very nice iPad.

This is an important launch for Apple. Earlier this month, the company reported a 16% year-over-year drop in iPad revenue for its fiscal second quarter. Apple hasn’t rolled out a new iPad since October 2022.

The new iPad Pro is fast, with the latest M4 chip, and it has a new OLED display that’s more colorful than prior screens. It’s the thinnest product Apple has ever launched.

But, it still runs the same iPad software, and that’s starting to feel dated. The fully loaded out model I tested costs about $2,499. That’s before you add the $350 keyboard and $129 Apple Pencil Pro, which will help you get more out of the device.

It’s time Apple makes this more than just an iPad. The software, called iPadOS, needs to catch up to the hardware.

Here’s what you need to know about it.

What’s good

The new iPad Pro models can be seen at an Apple event. The new iPad Pro is the first Apple device with the M4 chip. The larger version with a 13-inch display is the thinnest Apple device to date with a thickness of 5.1 millimetres. 

Christoph Dernbach | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

The new iPad Pros cost $200 more than the models they replaced. I tested the larger 13-inch iPad Pro, which starts at $1,299 before storage and 5G upgrades. The 11-inch model starts at $999.

The first thing I noticed when I picked it up was its thinness. It’s noticeable compared to the M1 iPad Pro I’ve used for the past several years. And it’s lighter. That’s especially nice on the 13-inch model, which replaces the 12.9-inch version. I always thought it felt too heavy and clunky to use as a tablet. It still feels big, but it’s more manageable.

The new OLED screen is another highlight. It’s clear and super colorful. It’s similar to the OLED screen Apple has used on its iPhones Pro for years but not on iPads. The screen adapts, getting brighter in dark movies or showing scenes with explosions. And professional video and photo editors will appreciate its color accuracy. I loved using it for movies and while playing Diablo Immortal. The game will look better once Activision Blizzard releases an update enabling improved graphics for the M4 iPad Pro. The four stereo speakers sound nice and loud but not tinny.

The camera is finally in the right place. It’s along the landscape edge of the iPad so that, when it’s propped up, it’s dead center for FaceTime calls. It used to be on the top of the iPad, forcing that awkward glance to the side during video calls. The quality was nice and clear during my tests and I like that the camera, using the Center Stage features, followed me as I moved around the room.

2024 13-inch Apple iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

The iPad has the latest and greatest M4 chip, which hasn’t launched on Macs yet. I ran a GeekBench multicore benchmark test that shows it scoring 48% higher than the prior M2 iPad Pro. Apple promises up to 4x faster rendering over the M2 and 1.5x faster processor performance, which means video editing in Final Cut Pro for iPad and rendering things like 3D models is quicker for professionals who need it. The M4 also has a special engine that helps power the “Tandem OLED” displays. Apple took a unique approach to the iPad by stacking two OLED screens on top of one another, which requires this special part of the M4 chip to work.

The iPad Pro felt quick when I ran two apps side-by-side, switching between Slack and the web browser, or loading into games. Apps switch in an instant. It wasn’t much different than my M1 iPad for everyday stuff, like browsing the web and opening apps, which seems to be how iPads are mostly used. More on that in the next section.

2024 13-inch Apple iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

The new iPads Pro support Apple’s updated $350 Magic Keyboard for iPad Pro (the 11-inch version is $300). It’s awesome and is just like typing on a Mac with a full function row above the number keys to switch apps, adjust the volume or brightness and more. Apple added a much larger trackpad and an aluminum palm rest but kept the same soft outside and “floating” screen mechanism, which allows you to snap the iPad onto the case using its magnetic pins and tilt it back and forth.

2024 13-inch Apple iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

The updated Apple Pencil Pro is also a lot of fun. I mostly use the Apple Pencil to sign documents. But folks who draw or paint on their iPads, or need more control in 3D or video apps, will like the new features. I liked squeezing it to change between the tool — pencil or brush or eraser and the color — and the haptic pulse to confirm you’ve squeezed it. Developers can add the squeeze function to their apps so you can access different tools in different apps. The added gyroscope also allows you to tilt and twirl the pencil to change your pencil or pen stroke. Double tap is convenient, too, allowing you to switch between a pencil and eraser tool, for example. The hover function previews where you’re going to touch the display.

Apple promises the same battery life as the last iPads Pro. So you get about 10 hours of web browsing or watching video, or nine hours if you’re browsing the web on a cellular connection. That lined up with what I received during my tests. Expect to get a full workday of use. Still, it’s impressive given this iPad is 1.3mm thinner and 103 grams lighter than the last 12.9-inch iPad Pro.

What’s bad

2024 13-inch Apple iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

Here’s my biggest gripe about the Pro models: The software, iPadOS, is what you’ll get on any other iPad. And while I think it works great, it’s time for the Pro models to have a better operating system.

My guess is Apple has something big planned for next month’s Worldwide Developers Conference and I hope it addresses this. I probably won’t get my wish, but I’d love to see the iPad Pro act just like a Mac. Plop it into the keyboard and it turns into a touchscreen MacBook. Lift it off and use it like a regular iPad. It has a newer processor than Apple’s MacBooks, so this should be possible if it’s something Apple wants. Regardless, we need better multitasking.

Stage Manager on the iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

Should you buy the 2024 iPad Pro?

2024 13-inch Apple iPad Pro

Todd Haselton | CNBC

It depends on what you need. It’s my favorite iPad to date, even though I don’t need the faster chip. I love how thin it is and that it’s lighter than the earlier iPads. The updated keyboard is great. The new Apple Pencil Pro works well, but creatives will use it more than I do.

I still think the 13-inch is a little too big and would steer most folks to the 11-inch model. If you don’t care about needing all the speed, you should consider the new iPad Air, which costs less and also comes with a bigger 13-inch screen. If you just need a tablet to browse the web, play games and check email, get the $350 iPad.

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending