DOJ pushes for Google to sell its advertising platforms
The DOJ claims that both platforms minimize competition and contribute to Google's monopoly in the advertising space. The executive department has also pushed Google to sell Chrome due to a separate ruling that the company held a monopoly on search engines.
Unsurprisingly, Google has no interest in getting rid of its products — it also plans to appeal the Court's ruling on Google Ad Manager. Google has announced "a proposal that fully addresses the Court's findings." These changes include allowing all rival publisher ad servers to make real-time bids on AdX and letting publishers set different price floors for each bidder.
"In contrast, the DOJ is seeking remedies that go significantly beyond the Court's narrow ruling by forcing a divestiture of Google Ad Manager," Google stated in its announcement. "This would risk breaking a tool advertisers use to connect with publishers and efficiently reach their customers, and that app and video publishers use to monetize their content — businesses that aren't even part of the narrow market of 'open web display ads' at issue in this case."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Android Authority
3 hours ago
- Android Authority
Pixel 10 Pro's new display tackles eye strain, but it's not the leap I wanted
Robert Triggs / Android Authority Google Pixel 10 rumors are coming thick and fast these days as we close in on the launch date in just a few months. Last week, we learned the upcoming phone's Pro models will likely ship with a 480Hz PWM display — a first for the Pixel series. High PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation) rates aren't new to smartphone displays; we've already seen phones boasting thousands of Hz. The Xiaomi 15 Ultra offers a 1,920Hz PWM rate, the OnePlus 13 clocks in at 2,160Hz, and the HONOR Magic 7 Pro tops out at a whopping 4,320Hz PWM. Even the budget-friendly Nothing Phone 3a manages 2,160Hz PWM. Is high display PWM important when buying a phone? 0 votes Yes, I want high PWM. NaN % No, it doesn't matter. NaN % It matters, but it's not the deciding factor. NaN % Not sure, I'd never thought about it. NaN % The Pixel 10 Pro and Pro XL won't match these heavyweights, but a bump to 480Hz will at least put them on par with the brand's closest rivals in the US, Apple and Samsung. In that sense, it's a significant move — but what does all this PWM stuff even mean, and should you actually care? What does PWM have to do with displays? C. Scott Brown / Android Authority If you know a bit about displays, you've likely come across Hz and refresh rate, which measures how many times per second (in Hz) the screen updates. 120Hz looks smoother than 60Hz, for example. PWM is also measured in Hz, but it's unrelated to how quickly your content refreshes. Instead, the PWM rate controls the brightness of the thousands of individual LEDs lighting up your fancy OLED display. Going back to some basic electronics: applying 0 V turns an LED off, while applying the maximum allowed voltage makes it shine at full brightness. There are two ways to achieve a brightness that isn't zero or full. The most intuitive is to scale the voltage somewhere between off and max. However, this isn't always practical for mobile displays, due to the LEDs' temperamental on-threshold voltage, the wasted power from maintaining an intermediate DC level, and the complexity of managing precise voltages across millions of sub-pixels. This isn't a problem for older LCD-type displays, where direct current dimming can easily control the entire backlight in one go. Kamila Wojciechowska / Android Authority Instead, displays control LED brightness using rapid on–off pulses. Each LED toggles hundreds or thousands of times per second, so quickly that your eye perceives a steady brightness rather than flicker. This is achieved efficiently with a clock driver embedded in the display controller, and it's far more power-friendly since little energy is wasted — crucial for mobile devices. The end result is equivalent from a brightness perspective, as the average output of these on–off pulses matches what a constant dimmed level would produce. If you're curious, recording slow-motion video on your phone camera can often reveal PWM flicker, appearing as rolling bands across the screen. That said, several phones now use a hybrid approach to dimming. For example, the Samsung Galaxy S24 FE and Xiaomi 14T Pro offer 'DC dimming' at high brightness levels well above the on-threshold, then switch back to PWM at lower brightness settings. Here, DC dimming really means dropping the drive current in one shot rather than true per-pixel scaling. Display PWM rates tell you how fast the OLED lights flicker on and off. OK, so now this begs the question: why do different smartphones have different PWM rates? Well, each display panel comes paired with its own driver IC. Higher‑end panels often include driver chips capable of much higher PWM frequencies right out of the factory, but even high-end panels don't always race to the biggest possible numbers. Even with the same display driver chip, manufacturers can tweak their PWM clock settings in firmware to hit specific targets — trading off PWM rate against overall power draw (including switching losses vs peak brightness), regulator overhead, BOM cost, and sometimes the precision of contrast and gamma control. Very high PWM frequencies, for example, can reduce the number of available brightness steps, slightly affecting smooth gradients and tonal transitions. These trade-offs are balanced differently depending on each brand's priorities for battery life, display quality, and eye comfort. Why do PWM refresh rates matter? Robert Triggs / Android Authority Here's the catch: what if your eyes or brain can actually detect that flicker from a low PWM rate? Well, this is very much a real issue, often called PWM sensitivity. It affects everyone differently — some people not at all, others might eventually feel eye fatigue, and the unlucky can end up with migraines or nausea. If you're susceptible, PWM sensitivity is most often noticed when viewing a device in a dark environment at low display brightness. That's because at lower brightness levels, PWM dimming runs at a low duty cycle: the LEDs spend most of their time turned off, only pulsing on for brief moments to emit just enough light. Combined with a dimly lit room, these short bursts might not register as visible flicker, but the nerves in your eyes — and ultimately your brain — can still pick up on them. PWM flicker can cause eye fatigue, headaches, and even nausea in some people. There's no exact science on the ideal PWM frequency, partly because there are so many variables when it comes to individual sensitivity, environment, and how any modulation is implemented. For many people, 480Hz doesn't cause any noticeable issues, and phones have been getting away with 240Hz without triggering a wave of returns. However, a growing body of research suggests that these comparatively low values can still trigger unwanted physiological responses in a sizable portion of the population. As such, opting for a 1,000Hz or 2,000Hz display generally pushes you further away from potential harm, and these phones are obviously the better choice for anyone who has experienced fatigue or worse from their devices. But do sufferers continue to benefit from ever-higher values like 4,000Hz? That's less certain, as there's bound to be a law of diminishing returns. Even so, bigger numbers are generally 'safer' from an eye health perspective, and there are no real downsides from the standpoint of display quality. PWM speed is important, but it's not the only thing to considder. As with most things, there are additional nuances at play. PWM display waveforms don't have to be sharp on–off pulses; advanced driver ICs can shape the modulation to ease eye strain. Gradual ramping up and down (like a sawtooth or triangle wave) is an effective alternative that aims to reduce PWM's adverse effects without simply cranking up the frequency. Likewise, most smartphones use multi-phase PWM, ensuring the entire display isn't off at the same time to help average out the luminance your eyes detect. Then there are the aforementioned DC-dimming firmware tricks that let brands advertise 'flicker-free' or 'low-flicker' modes for enhanced eye comfort, even though they still rely on PWM at low brightness. Of course, the best solution is probably to have a bit of everything. Just keep in mind it's not always a clear-cut case of bigger numbers being better — though it certainly doesn't hurt to have a higher PWM display in your next phone. Whether the Pixel 10 Pro's new display does enough here is still very much up for debate. Pixel takes yet another half measure Paul Jones / Android Authority PWM rate certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of what makes a great display, but for some consumers, it's a hugely important buying factor. While eye-fatigue features are staple technologies across the industry, some major manufacturers still fall short when it comes to tackling the specific discomfort caused by low-frequency PWM at dim brightness levels. Historically, Google's Pixel series has made no meaningful strides to address these concerns. Thankfully, the Pixel 10 Pro and Pro XL look set to offer a slight reprieve with their jump to 480Hz — a welcome improvement that finally starts to close the gap. Still, it's hard to ignore that this advance only brings Google in line with what's already become a baseline elsewhere, and remains far from the highest standards now possible. The Pixel 10's 480Hz upgrade would be welcome, but is still behind the curve. Perhaps more frustrating is that this upgraded display is expected to be exclusive to the Pro-tier models, meaning anyone eyeing the standard Pixel 10 — or a future Pixel 10a — will be left waiting yet again. For many, this won't be a dealbreaker. But for those sensitive to display flicker or simply hoping to minimize long-term eye strain, Google's cautious step forward may feel like too little, too late. In the end, it's a positive move, but one that highlights how much more could still be done. Here's hoping it won't take another generation or two before these improvements become standard across the entire Pixel lineup.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump can't give up the fight against foreign meddling in US tech
President Donald Trump last month got Canada to kill a blatantly unfair tax on US-based companies, but the fight against foreign meddling in America's tech industry has a long way to go. Canada's Digital Services Tax was set to slap companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users — until Trump canceled trade talks over what he rightly slammed as an 'egregious' move. Prime Minister Mark Carney promptly nixed the fee hours before it would've kicked in. Good: The tax was a shameless cash grab at the expense of American companies — and it was retroactive, demanding US-based tech firms fork over a whopping $2 billion. Note that the Biden administration also opposed the tax, and even whined that it might violate the USMCA trade agreement — but did nothing to actually stop it. Making Carney back down is fresh proof that Trump's big-stick trade tactics can work — and work to protect cutting-edge knowledge-based industries, not just brick-and-mortar manufacturing. It also shows that, despite all the ink spilled over Elon Musk's tiff with Trump, the tech industry still has plenty of reason to stay friendly with the administration. Especially since, as the prez pointed out on TruthSocial, Canada was just seeking to copy the European Union, which shamelessly uses its Digital Markets and Digital Services Acts to fill its coffers and bend US tech to its will. Six of seven tech companies the European Commission has highlighted as 'gatekeepers' to be reined in are American: Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and The EU has already hit Apple and Meta this year with massive fines for allegedly breaking the Digital Markets Act's antitrust rules. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Far worse: The Digital Services Act chills free expression by threatening steep financial repercussions against companies that allow speech that the EU considers 'disinformation,' 'hate speech' or threats to 'civil discourse' — concepts so nebulous that it's hard to see how companies can comply without stomping on the First Amendment. It's beyond unacceptable for Brussels to determine what Americans can say on American–owned sites. The EU's legal harassment of US-based tech firms is so egregious that Trump aide Peter Navarro slammed it as 'lawfare' in April. These 'fines' are basically tariffs by another name — milking successful American companies by creating strict regulations that target them especially. Canada clearly meant to get its own slice of that pie, only for Trump to slap down Ottowa's grasping hand. Making the Europeans back off should be high on the president's agenda as he starts his next tariff offensive. Don't let America's trade partners reap the benefits of our thriving, innovative tech industry while spitting on the free-speech and free-market ideals that make it possible.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
I tested AI writing tools on iPhone vs Galaxy vs Pixel — here's the winner
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. TG AI Phone Face-Off This article is part of our AI Phone Face-Off. If you're interested in our other comparisons, check out the links below. AI assistant Phone makers have been focusing on writing tools as part of their efforts in putting AI features on their devices. Turn to AI, the argument goes, and you can write sharper, more focused messages, emails and texts that always strike the exact tone you're looking for. But how many of these phones actually deliver on that promise? To find out, I took devices from Apple, Google and Samsung and set them to work adjusting different types of writing. I wanted to not only find out how well each phone's AI-powered writing features performed in a variety of scenarios, but if one phone maker in particular stood out from the crowd. Writing tools are a specific set of features in both Apple Intelligence and Galaxy AI, with both iPhones and Galaxy flagship devices featuring tools for proofreading, rephrasing and formatting text. The text-based AI features on Google Pixel devices are not signposted in the same way, but you can turn to the Gemini assistant to perform many of these tasks. I came up with five different scenarios for using AI writing features, and tried out each one on an iPhone 15 Pro, a Pixel 9 and a Galaxy S25 Plus, with each device running the latest available software for each model. (In the case of the Pixel, that's Android 16; the S25 Plus I'm using is still running Android 15.) Here's how they performed. I wrote out a 215-word note, summarizing the 70-year history of the Disneyland theme park, striking a stiff, formal tone that didn't really jibe with the notion of the Happiest Place on Earth. So I wanted to see if any of the writing tools on my trio of phones could lighten the tone a bit. Both Samsung and Apple include specific features in their writing tools for striking a casual tone. In the case of the Pixel, I pasted the text into Gemini and asked the assistant to make the tone more casual. Interestingly, the AI tools on all three phones changed the first sentence of my essay into a question. (An example from Galaxy AI: 'Disneyland opened in July 1995, so it's celebrating its 70th birthday, right?') I guess that's one way to be more engaging, but it struck me as odd that each AI tool used the same rhetorical trick. Both the Galaxy and Gemini AI tools went heavy on swapping out words for more casual-sounding synonyms. In some cases this was appreciated, like when Galaxy AI rewrote the phrase 'Much of Fantasyland' to read 'a lot of Fantasyland.' Other times they went overboard, particularly the Pixel, which threw in a lot of slang like 'glow-ups' for renovations and 'still chilling' for 'remain in place.' Like the tools on the Samsung and Google phones, Apple Intelligence also stripped out the 50-cent words for simpler alternatives — replacing 'subsequent' with 'over the years,' for example. It also seemed to retain more of my original text, which made the changes it did impose feel more effective. For this comparison, I used the Friendly button in Apple's Writing Tools panel, but I also gave the original text a pass using Apple's Describe Your Change feature, in which you type in directions for the tone you want. This was the only instance where the first sentence wasn't turned into a question, and Describe Your Change also retained a couple of asides that the Friendly option had excised. I did notice more compound sentences resulting from Describe Your Change. Winner: Apple — Apple Intelligence's less-is-more approach altered the tone while retaining something of my original writing style. Galaxy AI on the S25 Plus did a good job of stripping out some of the stiffer phrases, but went a little too far in some cases. The Pixel's attempt at more informal text just felt forced. In the next test, I went in the opposite direction, asking the different AI tools to help me strike a more professional tone in a letter that a manager might send their direct reports. In my experience, this is something AI generally excels at, as there are definite rules to clear, concise business communication. Indeed, all three phones passed this test with flying colors, producing cleaned-up emails I'd have no problem sending. As they did when loosening up my text, all three phones took the same approach to starting off my letter, turning the informal 'Guys' into a variation more business-appropriate 'Team.' There were other similarities when it came to word choice so that each retooled letter struck the same professional tone. But there were subtle differences in how each AI tool approached its respective rewrite. I appreciate the fact that Apple Intelligence broke out each point about the meeting time, dress code and lunch plans into separate paragraphs, each one covering a specific point. The PIxel's AI actually shortened the email, removing unnecessary sentences — a big improvement over the original. Another note about Google's effort: It inserted a '[DATE]' right after I listed the meeting time, something the other AI tools did not. I like that addition because it added further clarity as to when the meeting would take place. I also prefer that it put the onus on me to insert a date, as it's a reminder that you need to go over suggested changes from even the best AIs rather than just blindly send off whatever they churn out. Winner: Google — The Pixel's letter was more concise than the others, though all three produced solid efforts. I admit to being ambivalent about using AI as a way to improve my writing — I string words together for a living, man — but one thing I am absolutely fine handing over to a chatbot is formatting my notes. When I'm jotting things down in an interview or a demo, I'm just getting words onto the screen as quickly as possible, with little thought for niceties like line breaks, readability or headers. I don't think I'd turn over the task to Apple Intelligence again, as the List feature in the Writing Tools control panel simply took my list of iOS 26 features and added bullet points ahead of each line break — not a very helpful improvement. I had better luck trying again with the Key Point option, which at least grouped bulleted features underneath the different iOS apps. Still, it omitted FaceTime and Safari improvements, both of which were in my original notes. If I had to turn to Apple Intelligence for note organization, I'd probably use Table. It's not the most intuitive of choices, but it basically split the notes into a table with the apps in one column and their iOS 26 enhancements in the other. Gemini on the Pixel added introductory text under an iOS 26 header, summing up the changes accurately and quickly. Each bullet point under the app got a title like 'Intuitive Design' or 'Main Controls' followed by a description pulled from my notes. Galaxy AI on the Samsung phone gives you a choice between 'Headers and Bullets' or 'Meeting Notes.' I opted for the former, and thought the end result was big improvement over the original list of features I had assembled. I was particularly impressed with how Galaxy AI created new headers, turning something simple like 'Photos app' into a more detailed 'Redesign Photos App.' It also gave the overall note a title — 'iOS 26 Preview: A Glimpse Into the Future of Apple's Ecosystem' — though it added a superfluous bullet point. Winner: Samsung — Galaxy AI actually enhanced my notes in the process of cleaning them up, though the Gemini AI comes in a close second. Apple Intelligence's note organization tools are too hit-and-miss for my tastes. I've heard writing tools in AI dismissed as little more than a glorified spell-checker, and I'm not sure this particular test where I had each phone proofread a fake news article is going to do anything to dissuade people from believing that. I loaded up my fake article about Apple, Google and Samsung merging into one mega-company with lots of spelling errors, grammatical miscues and run-on sentences to see what the AI tools were smart enough to catch. If you're looking for the positives in the test, all three phones did a solid job catching the misspelled words and basic grammatical errors, though of the three, Apple Intelligence let a couple mistakes slip through. But none of the phones stepped in to break up a run-on sentence, nor did any catch a passage listing all three CEOs where Samsung's TM Roh's name appeared twice. (To be fair, Google's AI did catch a misspelling of Roh's name that slipped past Galaxy AI. Samsung's CEO may want to have a word with his large language models.) Winner: Google — Despite the missed run-on sentence and duplicate name, Google fared the best in this test, which used the AI-powered spellcheck feature in Google Keep. That said, Samsung's writing tools did a better job displaying corrections to make clear what it had changed. Apple Intelligence, which also failed to notice a stray quotation mark, trails its rival AI tools noticeably in this area. Because I'm pitting an AI feature in Gmail against one of the Apple Intelligence additions in the iPhone's Mail app, I only tested the feature on the Pixel 9. I think it's safe to assume that the results would be similar via Gmail on the Galaxy S25 Plus. It's also worth noting that at the time of testing, Gmail's smart reply feature that draws on context and tone is limited to Google Workspace at the moment, which I have access to. A reply to an email asking if I needed ground transportation to a convention and what entree I would prefer at the welcome dinner gave me three options in Gmail — one where I could confirm my attendance and that I needed a ride, another where I would still be attending but arrange my own transportation and a third option where I would not be attending. Unfortunately, Google's layout cuts off the responses after a few words, so I had to guess what the second reply would be. I tapped on that reply and then had the chance to further refine my message, adding whether I wanted to eat the chicken or the pupu platter. I appreciated that it's easy to toggle between replies and that you can edit the text Gemini AI produces before sending your reply. In Apple Mail, you have to tap reply for the smart replies to appear above the keyboard. Once I did that, I could either confirm attendance or say that I wasn't coming. After I tapped that I would be there, Mail gave me a second round of smart replies regarding the ground transportation question. But that's as many smart replies as Mail will give you — if I wanted to signify an entrée preference, I would have to type that in myself. Winner: Google — I much prefer the way Apple lays out its smart replies in Mail, as it's easier to see what you're selecting. But Gmail recognizes the full array of questions I needed to answer in this email, so I think it's a more thorough solution. Gemini AI came out on top in three of the five categories, and it came awfully close to beating out Galaxy AI for formatting notes. The only category where Google's chatbot came up short was in trying to make text sound more casual and conversational — probably the writing tool I would turn to the least. Galaxy AI isn't that far behind Google, particularly since it relies on Gmail's smart reply feature. Apple doesn't do badly on suggesting changes to the tone of what you write, particularly if you make use of the Describe Your Change tool. On note formatting and checking spelling, though, Apple Intelligence is a lot more erratic than its more established competitors. Should you buy the iPhone 16 or wait for the iPhone 17? Here's the advice I gave my own dad Apple just delivered a smackdown to the EU over iOS 26 rollout — they won't be getting new features iOS 26 has an awesome Wi-Fi upgrade for your iPhone
