New iPhone 17 Air leak highlights trade-off between slimness and battery life
According to recent leaks, the iPhone 17 Air will feature a battery capacity that does not exceed 3,000mAh. One leaker, known as yeux1122, initially claimed in May that the device would be equipped with a 2,800mAh battery. That estimate now appears to be supported by a new post on Weibo from the leaker Instant Digital, who reiterated that the battery will remain under the 3,000mAh mark.
If accurate, the iPhone 17 Air's battery would fall significantly below that of its counterparts in the iPhone 17 series. The iPhone 17 Pro Max, for example, is rumored to include a 5,000mAh battery. Even last year's iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Pro offered capacities around 3,500mAh.
Compounding concerns is the iPhone 17 Air's larger display, which could demand more power compared to previous base models. By comparison, the iPhone 16 Plus featured a 4,674mAh battery, offering a benchmark for what larger-screen devices can deliver in terms of endurance.
Despite these limitations, Apple appears to be taking steps to address potential battery life concerns. The upcoming iOS 26 will reportedly include a new Adaptive Power Mode, designed to optimize energy consumption. In addition, Apple is said to be developing a new battery case accessory to extend usage time for power users.
Still, for many consumers, battery life may be a deciding factor — especially as competitors continue to offer larger capacities in similarly sized devices.
The iPhone 17 Air is poised to appeal to users who prioritize portability and design. However, whether its reduced battery capacity becomes a dealbreaker remains to be seen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab Times
a day ago
- Arab Times
Apple set to launch first foldable iPhone in 2026
NEW YORK, July 31: Apple is anticipated to unveil its first foldable iPhone next year, marking a bold shift that could bring the tech giant a sales boost of around $65 billion. Analysts at Wall Street firm JP Morgan revealed on Tuesday that the long-awaited foldable device will be part of the iPhone 18 series, scheduled for release in September 2026, with a projected price of $1,999. The new phone, designed in a book-style fold similar to Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold lineup, will position Apple alongside Samsung, which has been selling foldable smartphones since 2019. While Apple has yet to confirm the launch, JP Morgan closely follows the company's developments and views the foldable iPhone as a natural progression following the eventual slowdown of the iPhone 17's sales cycle. Historically, Apple has taken existing technologies—such as smartwatches and tablets—and popularized them for the mainstream market. JP Morgan expects this trend to continue with foldable smartphones, forecasting significant growth in the market driven by Apple's entry. Samik Chatterjee, an analyst at JP Morgan, said, 'The market for foldable smartphones is expected to remain niche but positioned at the premium end of the market.' The introduction of a foldable iPhone would represent the most significant design overhaul since Apple's first smartphone debut in 2007, a launch that revolutionized mobile technology. Each new iPhone release has typically sparked strong consumer interest, with fans often queuing overnight to purchase the latest model. However, recent updates have been less groundbreaking, often focusing on modest improvements such as battery life and minor software tweaks. JP Morgan also noted that the upcoming iPhone 17 series, set to launch this autumn, is expected to feature 'fairly limited' enhancements, with investor attention already shifting toward next year's foldable model. This news comes as a much-needed boost for Apple, which has faced challenges maintaining its rapid growth. In June, Apple's annual product event failed to excite investors, particularly amid concerns that the company is lagging behind competitors in the field of artificial intelligence despite its vast hardware and software ecosystem. Since the start of the year, Apple's shares have fallen by 15%, affected by various pressures, including tariffs imposed by former President Trump on Chinese-made goods. Adding to Apple's challenges, former chief designer Sir Jony Ive joined OpenAI in May as part of a $6.5 billion initiative aimed at competing with the iPhone. In a pointed critique, Ive criticized existing 'legacy' products for relying on 'decades-old' technology.
Kuwait Times
23-07-2025
- Kuwait Times
Is today's AI boom bigger than the dotcom bubble?
By Jamie McGeever ORLANDO: Wall Street's concentration in the red-hot tech sector is, by some measures, greater than it has ever been, eclipsing levels hit during the 1990s dotcom bubble. But does this mean history is bound to repeat itself? The growing concentration in US equities instantly brings to mind the Internet and communications frenzy of the late 1990s. The tech-heavy Nasdaq peaked in March 2000 before cratering 65 percent over the following 12 months. And it didn't revisit its previous high for 14 years. It seems unlikely that we'll see a repeat of this today, right? Maybe. The market's reaction function appears to be different from what it was during the dotcom boom and bust. Just look at the current rebound from its post-'Liberation Day' tariff slump in early April – one of the fastest on record – or its rally during the pandemic. But despite all of these differences, there are also some worrying parallels. Investors would do well to keep both in mind. Top 10 club The most obvious similarity between these two periods is the concentration of tech and related industries in US equity markets. The broad tech sector now accounts for 34 percent of the S&P 500's market cap, according to some data, exceeding the previous record of 33 percent set in March 2000. Of the top 10 companies by market capitalization today, eight are tech or communications behemoths. They include the so-called 'Magnificent 7' – Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla – as well as Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan. By contrast, only five of the 10 biggest companies in 1999 were tech firms. The other five were General Electric, Citi, Exxon, Walmart, and Home Depot. On top of that, the top 10 companies' footprint in the S&P 500 today is much larger than it was back then. The combined market cap of the top 10 today is almost $22 trillion, or 40 percent of the index's total, significantly higher than the comparable 25 percent in 1999. This all reflects the fact that technology plays a much bigger role in the US economy today than it did around the turn of the millennium. AI bubble? By some measures, the current tech boom, driven in part by enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, is more extreme than the IT bubble of the late 1990s. As Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, points out, the 12-month forward earnings valuation of today's top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 is higher than it was 25 years ago. However, it's worth remembering that the dotcom bubble was characterized by a frenzy of public offerings and a raft of companies with shares valued at triple-digit multiples of future earnings. That's not the case today. While the S&P tech sector is trading at 29.5 times forward earnings today, which is high by historical standards, this is nowhere near the peak of almost 50 times recorded in 2000. Similarly, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are currently trading around 22 and 28.5 times forward earnings, compared with the dotcom peaks of 24.5 and over 70 times, respectively. With all that being said, a meaningful, prolonged market correction cannot be ruled out, especially if AI-driven growth isn't delivered as quickly as investors expect. AI, the new driver of technological development, will require vast capital outlays, especially on data centers, which may mean that earnings and share price growth in tech could slow in the short run. According to Morgan Stanley, the transformative potential of generative AI will require roughly $2.9 trillion of global data center spending through 2028, comprising $1.6 trillion on hardware like chips and servers and $1.3 trillion on infrastructure. That means investment needs of over $900 billion in 2028, they reckon. For context, combined capital expenditure by all S&P 500 companies last year was around $950 billion. Wall Street analysts are well aware of these figures, which suggests that at least some percentage of these huge sums should be factored into current share prices and expected earnings, but what if the benefits of AI take longer to deliver? Or what if an upstart (remember China's DeepSeek) dramatically shifts growth expectations for a major component of the index, like $4-trillion chipmaker Nvidia? Of course, technology is so fundamental to today's society and economy that it's difficult to imagine its market footprint shrinking too much, for too long, as this raises the inevitable question of where investor capital would go. It's therefore reasonable to question whether a tech crash today would take well over a decade to recover from. But, on the other hand, it's that type of thinking that has gotten investors into trouble before. Note: The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters
Arab Times
19-07-2025
- Arab Times
Apple files lawsuit against YouTuber over alleged iOS 26 leak
NEW YORK, July 19: Apple has taken legal action against prominent leaker Jon Prosser, accusing him of conspiring to break into an Apple development device and steal confidential trade secrets. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Prosser sought to profit from stolen information about the unreleased iOS 26 software. Leaks have long been a common occurrence in the tech world, especially involving companies like Apple. Industry insiders and leakers such as Prosser and Bloomberg's Mark Gurman frequently share predictions about upcoming Apple products, often citing anonymous company sources. While these leaks have become routine, Apple is now pushing back more aggressively. According to the complaint, Prosser, who runs the YouTube channel Front Page Tech, allegedly collaborated with a co-conspirator to gain access to an Apple employee's development iPhone running the unreleased iOS 26 software. The suit identifies the employee as Ethan Lipnik and states that another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti—who was reportedly staying at Lipnik's home—waited until Lipnik left before accessing the device. Ramacciotti then allegedly shared details of the unreleased software with Prosser via video call. Prosser is accused of using this early information in videos posted well before Apple's official announcements. The lawsuit also claims that Ramacciotti stated Prosser orchestrated the entire plan, promising to find a way to compensate Ramacciotti for his involvement. Prosser has publicly denied any wrongdoing and disputes the accuracy of the lawsuit's details. In a direct message, he told reporters, 'The details that Apple was given are just not accurate. I had no knowledge of how the info was obtained. He never told me he 'needed money' and I absolutely did not instruct him to act this out.' While Prosser acknowledges that he shared the leaked information on his channel — including calling it 'the biggest iOS leak ever'—he rejects any involvement in how the information was procured. The incident has had consequences within Apple. Ethan Lipnik, the employee whose device was allegedly accessed, was terminated for violating company policies protecting confidential information and unreleased software, according to the complaint. Apple and Lipnik have not responded to requests for comment. Tech analyst Anshel Sag of Moor Insights & Strategy described the lawsuit as 'quite significant,' noting a clear difference between Apple's allegations and Prosser's account, particularly as the employee involved appeared unaware of the leak. Sag emphasized that the key issue lies in the inadequate protection of the development device and the need to verify the origin of leaked information before public dissemination. He added that Apple has stronger legal tools in the U.S. to combat leaks compared to previous incidents often traced to international manufacturing partners. The complaint cites violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, both enforceable in federal court. Prosser said he only learned of the lawsuit through media reports. Expressing sympathy for Lipnik's firing, he stated, 'I wish he had shared with Apple what had occurred, and I wish that Apple would have connected with me for more answers—I would have gladly chatted with them.'
