As Apple gears up to anoint John Ternus the new company CEO in September (while current leader Tim Cook takes a seat on the board) the company appears to be firing on all cylinders ahead of the leadership transition. 

What’s going well

Just look at the evidence: 

• Apple is building market share across its entire product range; even memory-driven price inflation doesn’t seem to have dampened demand for its hardware yet.
• While Apple had to raise prices, the company’s MacBook Neo remains seriously popular. It’s sitting atop Amazon’s US best-selling chart, which currently includes six Macs in the top 10. The Neo has topped this chart since its introduction.
• Apple’s iPhone 17 series continues to sell well, with recent market data showing sustained growth. Both Counterpoint and IDC tell us that iPhone shipments continue to increase, even as other vendor shipments slide.
• IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo recently estimated that Apple’s upcoming foldable iPhone Ultra could grab 29.4% of global folding smartphone sales this year, rising to 34.9% in 2027.
• The company’s new 27 series of operating systems is attracting a great response as beta testers report that it is already solid, stable, and performing well.
• The AI narrative has really changed, with analysts no longer quite so starry-eyed at the prospects for the big frontier AI firms. Apple’s edge-AI-enabling approach is winning converts.

What’s coming up

The company’s newly-filed lawsuit against OpenAI may or may not succeed, but it will certainly help consolidate recognition of the importance of Apple’s designs and intellectual property in whatever hardware emerges from the AI firm. It also means both Apple and OpenAI are already competing in hardware, even though neither company yet offers anything that directly challenges the other. 

Apple has just set out its stall to brand-loyal fans in a big way and did so before OpenAI gets to woo the same set of customers with a wriggle of its Jony Ive-tinged talisman.

The stage is set for intense competition between the two. Though some say Apple’s needs to improve employee retention, if it does find proof of efforts to use recruitment to engage in industrial espionage, it’ll be easier to represent its own products as being the OG for new hardware. 

If nothing else, it means consumers will forever be asking, “If OpenAI’s designers are so good, why did it need to poach them from Apple?” Doubt is a weapon.

Managing perception

It doesn’t matter how the case goes, because there fight is already affecting consumer psychology. It also means that as Ternus prepares to take his seat atop the rainbow-colored Apple throne, we can already size him up. “A man is measured by his enemies,” Joe Abercrombie wrote in “The Trouble With Peace.”

Given the proximity of the leadership transition, it’s highly probable that Ternus signed-off on the litigation; in doing so he — and Apple — tell us to expect more of the same. 

Apple has, rightly or wrongly, decided that OpenAI will become its new existential bugbear, following in the footsteps of Microsoft Windows, Real Networks, Adobe Flash, Android, and Samsung, all of whom have been useful foils against which Apple has been able to build and maintain its identity.

Looking at that list, you’d be tempted to believe that nothing much is new. Apple has often defined itself by the enemies it sometimes keeps. What has been will be again, which in this case means even as OpenAI attempts to carve out an identity as a hardware manufacturer delivering solutions to compete with Apple and Google, Ternus’ team’s looks to drive a consensus-shaped wedge into the pro-LLM propaganda. 

That blow comes as Apple finally gets its act together around AI, and as the company prepares for a future in which the world’s most-used wearable device also becomes the wearable way to woo Siri AI.

My kingdom come

Rising market share, powerful solutions, an increasingly recognized and respected approach to AI, and an ideological crusade — these details constitute Apple’s place today and are Tim Cook’s coronation gift to Ternus. He’s passing along a strong and hyper-profitable baton that screams of timeliness and relevance even as the company gets set, ready, to go with a year or two of new product designs, new product families, and a 20^thanniversary iPhone.

This is Apple’s party. OpenAI’s name didn’t make the list. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core.

Here in this high-tech era of 2026, keeping important info backed up and synced should be effortless and something that just happens on its own, automatically, without any actual thought or ongoing human effort.

In many areas of our digital life, that mercifully does Just Work™ in exactly that way. Fire up an email in most modern mail services, and you can stop at any point and find your in-progress draft in that same app on any other device. The same applies to any file you’re finessing within Google Drive or other cloud storage services or document you’re dawdling over in Docs.

One area where seamless syncing somehow still doesn’t occur, though, is in the domain of downloaded documents on Android. If someone sends you a PDF or a Word file and you save it to your phone, that file exists in an archaic-seeming silo — only locally, on that one gadget. And that, of course, means (a) you can’t access it from any other device, and (b) if you misplace your phone or move into a new one at some point along the way, the file will be left behind in time and entirely unavailable.

Well, take a moment to join me in celebration: Amidst all the Gemini gobbledegook that no one asked for (and that often falls somewhere between “pointless” and “actively counterproductive”), Google’s giving us a major upgrade to Android’s backup capabilities right now. It’s a simple-seeming switch buried in your system settings, and it’s up to you to find and activate it.

Once you do, though, those once-orphaned documents on your Android device’s local storage will be perpetually synced and protected, automatically, without any ongoing thought or effort.

All you’ve gotta do is find and flip that one new switch.

[Don’t let yourself miss an ounce of Android Intelligence. Join my free weekly Android Intelligence newsletter and get one new thing to try in your inbox every Friday!]

The Android backup lowdown

So, for a quick bit of pertinent context on this: Android’s backup systems have actually come a really long way over the years.

‘Twas a time, y’see, when little to nothing about you would sync and carry over automatically from one Android device to another. Years ago — back in the ancient-seeming prehistoric era of the early 2010s — Android enthusiasts in the know would rely on community-created third-party apps for everything from remembering and resyncing downloaded apps to restoring data from within those apps and onward. And reconfiguring your system preferences would be a whole time-consuming song and dance every single time you reset a device or moved into a new one, as little to nothing would automatically carry over.

Most of that stuff is now effortless and automatic. And, thanks to apps like Google Messages, Calendar, Drive, and Docs, many other areas of important data are also synced on their own at the app level — outside of any system mechanisms.

Locally stored files, however, have remained an awkward omission. To this day, anything you download on any Android device exists only on that one device and isn’t synced or backed up anywhere. The only way that happens is — in a blast-from-the-past twist — if you go out of your way to find and set up a third-party app to handle the heavy lifting.

That brings us to today. Right now, as we speak, Google’s in the midst of sending out a quiet under-the-hood update that (brace yourself…) adds in the option to automatically sync and back up any documents on your device as a native part of Android’s backup setup.

See?

JR Raphael, Foundry

The option is on its way to all devices running 2018’s Android 9 release and higher. (If you’re still using a phone with an Android version older than that, you’re now a whopping eight years out of date, and you have much bigger problems.)

Once the added option is present and available for you, you’re literally lookin’ at 10 seconds to find and activate it.

Lemme show ya how.

Android’s document backup addition

I promise: This couldn’t be much simpler.

No matter what kind of Android device is in front of you, just head into your system settings and open the section called “Accounts and backup,” “Back up or copy data,” or something along those same lines. (The exact wording can vary based on who made your device and when it was released or last updated.)

Either tap the line labeled “Google Backup” or look for an option to “Back up data” via Google Drive. You should then either see a series of options for different areas of available backup right then and there — or, depending on your device, you might have to tap a line labeled “Other device data” (or something similar) to find the full list of possibilities.

However you get there, once you’re lookin’ at that list, you’ll see a newly added line for “Documents” if this latest under-the-hood update has reached you.

JR Raphael, Foundry

And from there, all that’s left is to tap it and enable the switch to include that in your automated backups from that moment forward.

If you aren’t seeing the option yet, don’t panic. Google always sends these under-the-hood updates out bit by bit over time, so the change probably just hasn’t reached your device quite yet. As long as you’re running Android 9 or higher, it’ll get there. Set yourself a reminder to check back once a week or so. Odds are, you’ll see it pretty soon.

Notably, all documents synced in this way are always encrypted for security, and they’re kept in your personal (or, depending on the nature of your account, perhaps company-connected) Google Drive storage. That does mean they’ll count against your overall Google storage total, so keep an eye on your Drive storage total to make sure you’re in solid shape and look to the Google One storage hub if you ever want some simple suggestions for freeing up space.

Speaking of other Google services: If you ever want to keep other types of locally stored non-document files from an Android device synced and available elsewhere, you can easily rely on Google Photos for syncing screenshots and other images — after enabling sync in general, be sure to look in the app’s “Collections” areas to find the “On this device” folder and then flip the toggle to “Backup all device folders” (or get more nuanced and open specific individual on-device folders if you want to sync some but not all of those areas) — and you can still turn to those aforementioned third-party apps for broader syncing of anything else imaginable.

But with documents now being handled automatically and natively, that’s one big worry now out of your hair. Just note that the onus will fall on you to find and flip the switch and actively opt in to the feature on each and every Android device you’re using.

Take 10 seconds to do that, though, and you’ll have one less void in your Android data arena. And you don’t need Gemini to tell you that that can only be a good thing.

Get practical Android knowledge in your inbox every Friday with my free Android Intelligence newsletter — one new thing to try each week, straight from me to you.

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

The traditional methods of measuring success no longer tell the full story. Here’s what should replace them — and why.

In brief:

• AI is transforming software as a service (SaaS), and the old ways of keeping score no longer apply.
• Smart companies are evolving new metrics that provide deeper insight into how AI-native software is performing in a new marketplace.
• These changes impact everything from pricing to valuations.

The transformation of the software-as-a-service (SaaS) industry toward AI-native operating companies is rapidly changing the unit of value across the industry.

The traditional metric of seats — which measured access — is rapidly giving way to credits designed to measure work performed. This evolution is upending the industry in multiple ways, impacting everything from pricing to enterprise valuations.

While many companies still cling to seat-based metrics to measure growth, efficiency and durability, the future is likely to be one in which companies utilize a credit-centric metrics framework, with seats and outcomes as the bookends of a spectrum.

Why do software companies need new metrics?

Why the rethink, and why now? There are five major forces that are driving this shift:

1. The unit of value is changing. Seats measured who could access software, and credits measure what the software actually does. But in an AI-native world, agents don’t have seats; they have workloads. Over the past 18 months, every major SaaS platform has moved to some forms of credit or consumption unit.
2. The cost of goods sold (COGS) is exploding. AI inference adds real per-unit costs that scale with usage. In an AI-native world, software companies can’t scale to infinite users at near‑zero marginal cost as before.
3. Buying is moving up the org chart. AI-native applications shift purchasing to higher-level operators — such as line-of-business leaders or chief operating officers — which expands the market from software budgets to labor budgets. And because AI agents replace services as well as software, the total market opportunity is 3x to 10x larger than traditional SaaS.
4. Time to value (TTV) is collapsing. With AI-native tools, customers start seeing meaningful results in weeks rather than quarters. Onboarding and setup are fast, workflows are pre-built, and there’s no need for extensive customer success or professional services — dramatically reducing implementation time and costs.
5. Retention is bifurcating. AI forces clarity in a way that traditional SaaS couldn’t. Products that can provide value become even “stickier” and retain customers. Those that don’t churn faster. In an AI-native marketplace, the middle disappears.

How this shift is impacting pricing

Given how AI-native software is transforming the market, the shift to more variable pricing options is inevitable.

Seats won’t go away completely. Subscription pricing based on the number of users is stable and predictable and will continue to work for some customers. Tokens — the use of pass-through pricing for underlying compute — will fit those customers where the AI feature is commoditized or the buyer wants transparency into costs.

Credits will likely become the dominant architecture because they provide a simple metric for both customers and providers. The vendor sets the conversation ratio between credits and underlying compute, shielding the customer from inference cost details. Credits are easy to understand and can be packaged into annual contracts for multiple features and products.

Finally, the industry will likely see some move toward outcome-based pricing for results such as resolved tickets, recovered revenue or qualified leads. This strategy will mostly be limited to verticals where it is easy to prove AI impacted the result.

Where a software vendor sits on this spectrum is a signal of differentiation and pricing power. Credits are where most defensible AI-native businesses are landing because they balance customer predictability with vendor margin control.

How AI upends classic SaaS metrics

When SaaS was in its infancy, companies settled on key metrics designed to answer a small set of core questions. Are we growing? Are customers using the product? Are we retaining and expanding accounts?

But as AI upends software itself, it is also requiring companies to adopt new metrics to track success. These new metrics fall into three primary buckets, rebuilt around the pricing spectrum described earlier and the trend toward credits as the primary frame:

Revenue composition

• Committed credit annual recurring revenue (ARR) vs. burndown ARR: Measuring the credits sold on annual commitment vs. those consumed and replenished. This is the single most important split for valuation. Committed credits behave like subscription and burndown behaves like usage.
• Credit utilization rate: The percentage of purchased credits consumed per period. This is a leading indicator of renewal sizing.
• Credit burn velocity: How fast is a customer consuming their credits, and is that consumption increasing or decreasing quarter over quarter? This metric predicts expansion or contraction before it shows up in ARR.
• Effective price per credit: The real revenue per credit after discounts, overage and rollover, which can detect revenue leakage and help companies set smarter guide rails.

Margin reality

• Credit margin: The gross profit the company earns per credit after subtracting inference costs. This is the core economic unit for AI-native, usage-based businesses — the replacement for gross margin per seat used in SaaS.
• Inference-adjusted gross margin: By carving out AI inference costs separately in the P&L statement, you can see true AI margins, avoid hiding deterioration inside blended SaaS margins, and clearly distinguish AI economics from legacy SaaS economics.
• Compute leverage ratio: This metric measures how efficiently the business converts compute spend into revenue. It shows whether your AI margins are improving as you scale.
• AI-adjusted “Rule of 40”: This updated metric recalibrates the traditional growth and profitability benchmark to account for AI’s lower gross margins and variable inference costs, giving a more accurate picture of business health for AI-native companies.

Behavioral and value signals

• Time-to-first outcome: Replaces traditional onboarding metrics. Tracks how fast a customer reaches their first measurable result.
• Adoption: AI-native adoption is measured by workflow penetration and active agent density, not seat count. As AI replaces human-driven usage, the unit of adoption shifts from people to automated workflows and agents.
• Net credit retention (NCR): Credit-volume retention across the customer base, tracked separately from net recurring revenue to avoid price-change impact.

Along with these new metrics, the industry’s transformation is prompting companies to retire or recalibrate old SaaS measures, including per-seat ARR as a primary key performance indicator (KPI), traditional magic number calibrated to subscription dynamics, unadjusted Rule of 40, customer success metrics tied to human touchpoints, and blended gross margin without AI COGS carve-outs.

What does this mean for enterprise value calculations?

As the internal metrics of success change, so do the ways the investment community measures growth and long-term viability.

Increasingly, a company’s valuation multiple depends on whether its revenue behaves like committed subscription ARR or volatile usage ARR, and the commit‑to‑burndown ratio is the metric investors use to decide where the company fits.

For example, a business with 80% committed credit ARR could trade closer to subscription comps and one with 80% burndown could trade closer to usage comps even though both have the same types of customers. Being able to proactively explain the commit‑to‑burndown mix can help companies avoid undervaluation.

In addition, utilization is expected to replace net promoter scores and seat usage as the primary predictor of churn or expansion. Low utilization guarantees downsizing at renewal, so companies must track utilization cohorts the same way SaaS tracks logo retention cohorts today.

We’re also seeing an inversion of the operating model, with R&D and COGS moving up the P&L and sales and marketing (S&M) and customer success (CS) moving down or sideways. The net operating leverage profile is structurally different from classical SaaS, and the cost-to-scale curve looks different too.

Finally, credit margin engineering is a hidden value-creation lever. The gap between price per credit and cost per credit is set by the software vendor and can be optimized. Most operators have barely started managing this rigorously, and the ones who do will pull away on margin.

What this means for leaders, boards and investors

The shift from classic SaaS metrics to new AI‑native measures isn’t cosmetic. It represents the seismic change the industry is experiencing as AI matures and transforms products and organizations.

While these metrics — and perhaps others yet to be determined — may evolve over time, there is no doubt they are already changing how AI companies allocate capital, price products, incent sales teams, evaluate performance and communicate with investors.

It’s important to remember that SaaS metrics were practical tools for a specific era of software. As that era draws to a close, winning companies will choose new metrics that shape behavior and drive smart decision-making.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Cloudflare recently beat Q1 2026 earnings. Revenue up 34% year over year. EPS ahead of consensus. Full-year guidance raised. Then, in the same breath, they announced 1,100 layoffs, 20% of the company. CEO Matthew Prince’s explanation: “The way we work at Cloudflare has fundamentally changed.”

Block did the same thing. Beat guidance, raised outlook, cut 4,000+ jobs. Both framed it as architecting for the AI era.

This is not a contradiction. This is the new math boards are running. And if you’re a CIO who hasn’t started running it yourself, you’re behind.

The benchmark has moved

AI-native companies have quietly reset what “efficient” means for a technology organization. Midjourney generates over $500M in revenue with roughly 160 employees, over $3M per head. Anthropic hit a $14B annualized run rate in early 2026 with fewer than 3,000 employees. Across the top AI-native startups, the average revenue per employee is $3.48M, nearly twelve times the traditional SaaS benchmark of $300K.

Boards aren’t comparing you to your 2019 self anymore. They’re comparing you to Anthropic.

This is the pressure Cloudflare and Block are responding to. They’re not cutting people because the business is struggling. They’re cutting because investors have internalized a new denominator. Headcount is no longer a proxy for capacity; it’s a liability on the efficiency ratio.

For CIOs, this creates a hiring problem that looks nothing like the cloud or mobile talent gaps of the past decade. Those gaps were about volume: hire 100 cloud engineers, absorb the cost, build the capability… This one is about density; you’re not looking for 100 people. You’re looking for 10 who can deliver what 100 couldn’t, and justify $1M or more in value per seat.

Finding bodies to fill seats has never been easier. Finding people who operate at that level of leverage is a different problem entirely.

‘Acqui-hires’ are a shortcut with a hidden cost

Companies have figured out that recruiting AI-native talent one by one is too slow and that it’s faster to buy a team. Google’s acquisition of the Windsurf founders, Meta bringing in the Scale AI team, Accenture’s string of AI-focused acquisitions: these are acqui-hires dressed up as M&A. The premium on experienced AI talent is high enough, and the urgency real enough, that organizations are skipping traditional hiring loops entirely and buying their way in.

I’ve been on the other side of this. My company, MadKudu, was acquired by HG Insights specifically to bring AI-native capability into an established enterprise business. HG needed change agents who had already figured out how to build and ship in this new era, not just people who’d read about it. That’s the thesis behind most of these deals.

But there’s a cost that doesn’t show up in the acquisition price.

AI-native teams are fast because they operate with a different set of defaults: full access to tools, minimal governance layers, the ability to experiment and ship without a six-week approval cycle. That operating model is not a perk; it’s the fundamental mechanism. It’s why a team of 10 can do what an enterprise team of 100 can’t.

When you acqui-hire that team and then slot them into your existing approval processes, you’ve bought the people and killed the engine. The change agents you paid for become change-frustrated. The attrition that follows is expensive and predictable.

The harder realization: acquiring an AI-native team means accepting how they work. That requires deliberately carving out space for them to operate differently, not just tolerating it but institutionalizing it. The acquisition is an organizational change program, not just a hiring event.

The CIO’s real problem

The governance stack most enterprise organizations run was designed for a headcount world. Every tool vetting cycle, every vendor review, every security approval was calibrated assuming you were managing a large team where consistency and control were the primary objectives.

That calculus breaks when your goal is talent density. The same approval processes that protect against data leaks are now the reason your best people can’t do their best work. When it takes six weeks to approve a tool that your competitor’s team is already shipping with, you’ve traded velocity for the perception of safety.

The practical fix is structured experimentation: clear guardrails, defined boundaries, but explicit permission to try tools before deciding whether to roll them out broadly. Gating everything prevents you from ever discovering what 10x productivity looks like.

The skills inventory question is also more nuanced than it sounds. Job titles won’t tell you where the leverage is. You need to map the actual tasks within each function and assess which can be automated or augmented with AI. That’s where you find the people who, with the right tools, become your $1M/employee talent, not because you hired differently, but because you enabled better.

This is also where the build-versus-buy question gets genuinely tricky. As AI reshapes how products are built and delivered, your internal operating model — how you work, how fast you ship, how you use data — is becoming core IP. Outsourcing delivery means outsourcing the part of the organization where your competitive advantage is now being built.

Closing the gap without slowing down

The AI talent wars are not primarily a recruiting problem. They’re a rethinking of what organizations are supposed to look like.

Boards have a new benchmark. Cloudflare, Block, Amazon, Meta and others have already started restructuring to meet it, publicly, painfully, even while beating their numbers. The question for CIOs isn’t whether this pressure arrives; it’s whether you’re ahead of it or behind it when it does.

The organizations that navigate this well won’t win by outbidding competitors for a handful of elite engineers. They’ll win by designing operating systems that amplify the leverage of the talent they do have, by enabling their best people rather than constraining them, and by treating AI fluency as a core organizational capability rather than a niche specialization.

Talent density is the new headcount model. The sooner your governance, your tooling and your board conversations reflect that, the better positioned you’ll be when the next efficiency report lands.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”

“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. 

“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”

The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”

Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. 

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.

As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. 

“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

Model Context Protocol (MCP), the emerging standard for connecting AI models to external tools and enterprise data, is undergoing its biggest architectural overhaul yet.

The latest release candidate, scheduled for release on July 28, removes protocol-level sessions in favor of a stateless architecture, a change which industry experts say is intended to make MCP easier to deploy across standard cloud infrastructure as enterprises move AI pilots into production.

“The session-based model made sense when MCP servers were local processes on a developer’s laptop. In production, it became an operational tax,” said Muskan Bandta, cloud associate at ZopDev.

“When your infrastructure team asks whether MCP services can scale like other cloud applications, the answer used to be ‘not quite.’ With the move to a stateless architecture, the answer is now yes,” Bandta added.

Earlier versions of the protocol maintained information about every client connection, meaning servers had to keep track of each session throughout an interaction. While that approach worked well for local development, it complicated deployments across multiple servers because requests often had to be routed back to the same machine, limiting scalability and making MCP a less natural fit for modern cloud architectures.

“Under the new stateless design, every request contains the information needed for any available server to process it independently. Applications that need to maintain context across multiple requests can still do so, but developers must now manage that state explicitly rather than relying on the protocol itself,” she said.

This transition to a stateless design goes beyond simplifying infrastructure by fundamentally changing how AI applications manage and share context across tools, according to Amit Jena, AI development manager at IT consulting firm Kanerika.

Instead of keeping application state hidden inside protocol sessions, the new design makes it explicit, allowing AI models to access, reason over, and pass that information between tools, giving developers greater control over how context is preserved and shared across tools, Jena said.

It should also make AI workflows more portable, resilient, and easier to orchestrate across distributed environments, he said.

MCP’s new features

Other changes to MCP include the addition of a Multi Round-Trip Requests (MRTR) mechanism that changes how AI agents request additional information they need to complete a task.

Instead of relying on a persistent connection between the client and server throughout the interaction, the new mechanism lets the server request additional input through a standard request-response exchange before continuing the task, Jena said.

Routable transport headers, another addition, enable API gateways and other networking infrastructure to identify and route MCP requests without inspecting their contents.

They reduce processing overhead, lower latency, and let enterprise teams enforce routing, rate-limiting and security policies more efficiently using existing API management infrastructure, Jena said.

MCP is also getting an updated authorization framework built around OAuth 2.1 and OpenID Connect; interactive MCP Apps; and deterministic caching of tool and resource listings to improve LLM prompt-cache hit rates, potentially saving on token costs.

Rebuilding the trust boundary

The MCP release steering committee also decided to deprecate some legacy features, including Roots, Sampling, Logging, the older HTTP+SSE transport and Dynamic Client Registration, although these will continue to work in this version and any other released over the next year.

The deprecation of Sampling is likely to have the biggest impact because it changes who is responsible for interacting with foundation models, said Jena.

“Sampling let MCP servers invoke the LLM through the client, which meant the server had a callback path into the model without owning that connection. Deprecating it means rebuilding that trust boundary,” Jena said. “Your server now calls the model provider directly. That changes your network architecture, your auth model, and depending on how you’ve built cost attribution, your billing flow.”

The year-long transition period will be enough for teams to audit their sampling dependencies now, said Jena: “The risk is that teams who haven’t implemented sampling themselves won’t know if a third-party MCP server they’re depending on uses it.”

Updated MCP SDKs

To accompany the protocol update, there are updated MCP SDKs for Python, Typescript, Go, and C#. These support both the old and new protocol versions, so new clients can continue communicating with older servers, while updated servers will also support older clients, reducing the risk of immediate disruptions.

That backward compatibility should make the transition largely incremental, except for enterprises that built custom infrastructure around MCP’s earlier session-based architecture, Bandta said.

Identifying and auditing those session dependencies may not be easy, Jena warned.

“Session management complexity tends to be hidden across multiple layers — the gateway config, the deployment scripts, the monitoring dashboards. The code change is small; finding everywhere the assumption lives is what takes time,” he said.

This article first appeared on InfoWorld.

Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.130, an update to the code editor that brings several improvements to the Agents window, along with enhancements to the agent host and the terminal.

VS Code 1.130 was released on July 22, one week after VS Code 1.129. Developers can access the release for Windows, Linux, or Mac from code.visualstudio.com.

With the new release, the Agents window gets updates that make it easier to review changes and manage chats. File-level diff statistics help users assess the size of each file’s changes when scanning a multi-file diff. The window also gets a more compact multi-file diff that makes it easier to review changes, Microsoft said. The Agents window is a dedicated window in VS Code that lets users run and track multiple agent sessions in parallel across their projects, without opening each workspace in a separate window.

Also with VS Code 1.130, assisted permissions for agent tool calls are available in the agent host. With assisted permissions, the LLM evaluates the risk of each tool call and decides whether the tool can run or should require the user’s approval. The setting to enable assisted permissions is chat.assistedPermissions.enabled. In another agent host improvement, quick chats running on the agent host now use compact, single-line rows in the sessions list. Regular sessions retain a second line with change statistics, status, and timestamps.

VS Code users now can open file links from Git diff output in the terminal when Git’s diff.mnemonicPrefix option is enabled. VS Code recognizes prefixes such as i/ for the index and w/ for the working tree, and removes the prefix from the link target so the correct file opens. When mnemonic prefixes are enabled, VS Code also recognizes the numeric prefixes produced by git diff --no-index.

Timestamps for chat requests and responses now are displayed when users hover over the message toolbar. You can disable this through the chat.verbose setting.

I have worked alongside enterprise technology for more than 30 years and watched AI evolve from a lab experiment into the modern boardroom’s core focus. However, the last few years of implementing AI alongside our customers have delivered our most profound reality checks.

The initial hype has faded, leaving CIOs to drive real enterprise value. Based on my experience implementing Google, OpenAI and Anthropic technologies, here are the fundamental, technology-agnostic lessons every leader must anchor their strategy around.

AI as a leadership multiplier

The most common tactical error we see is treating AI as an isolated technology project. What I have observed among our customers is that true success does not come from organizations that define a standalone “AI strategy,” but rather from those leaders that integrate AI into their business strategy.

When our customers isolate AI and define an AI strategy, it inevitably treats it like a “technological toy” to experiment with. This approach yields fragmented, orphaned initiatives that fail to scale because they are fundamentally disconnected from their core corporate objectives. What I learned is that AI is not the ultimate destination; it is a powerful catalyst. We have replaced “What can AI do for our customers?” with a more strategic question, “How does AI accelerate their existing business goals?”

Think of AI like electricity. No modern corporation designs a standalone “electricity strategy.” Instead, all companies route it invisibly across the entire organization to illuminate offices, power production lines and drive communication. AI must be woven into the enterprise fabric in the exact same way, acting as an underlying utility that supercharges your existing operational model.

Integrating AI into the broader business strategy also dictates how we measure success. It forces a shift away from short-term tech vanity metrics and anchors the technology into a long-term roadmap.

When AI remains trapped within the IT department of our customers, we notice that it is relegated to a mere “software experiment.” To become a true competitive advantage, we observed that AI requires intense cross-functional orchestration. This perspective does not diminish the merit of the technical team; their expertise is fundamental for establishing the architecture, data governance and tools your enterprise requires. However, while IT builds the foundational infrastructure, it lacks the organizational authority to decide what should be built on top of it. Only the CEO or the owner of the company can step in to ensure AI leaves the “toy project” phase and integrates into the DNA of the organization.

The requirement for top-down, executive ownership stems from three critical realities observed in the field:

• Silo-smashing and data collaboration: True enterprise AI is data-hungry and that data lives across disparate business lines, finance, operations, marketing and customer service. Only the CEO possesses the cross-functional authority to demand that data silos be dismantled.
• Cultural transformation and fear mitigation: AI triggers widespread anxiety over job displacement across all industries and hierarchies. When relegated to an “IT project,” resistance spikes as teams view it as a threat to their livelihoods. When I saw the CEO lead this cultural shift directly is when I noticed the best results.
• C-Suite education and strategic alignment: The mandate for AI capability cannot just be delegated downward; the transformation must begin at the very top. I have conducted more than 70 presentations for the Board of Directors and C-Level teams. These people need to be actively educated not on technical code, but on specific business use cases, return on investment (ROI) frameworks and how AI resolves core organizational bottlenecks.

PwC’s data found that only 12% of enterprises have achieved both cost and revenue benefits from AI. Those elite 12% succeeded precisely because their CEOs embedded AI extensively across strategic decision-making and cross-functional workflows. AI is simply too disruptive and too critical to be left exclusively in the hands of technical experts. If AI is not on the CEO’s weekly agenda, it is fundamentally missing from the company’s true strategy.

AI as a new operational framework

Traditional IT systems have operated on strict algorithmic certainty: if you input a specific set of data, the system executes an immutable line of code and guarantees the same, predictable output every single time.

AI completely breaks this paradigm. Because modern AI is built on probabilistic models, it does not execute static formulas; instead, it predicts the most likely correct response based on mathematical probabilities. This means that AI solutions carry an inherent, small percentage of uncertainty and variability. A prompt entered today might yield a slightly different, though contextually valid, output tomorrow.

Executive leadership and organizational cultures must be actively educated to accept and navigate this fundamental shift. Traditional quality assurance frameworks for software are designed for a 100% success rate. Applying this rigid standard to AI will paralyze your initiatives, keeping 80% of your projects trapped eternally in the pilot phase. This happened to us in a food and beverage company in Latin America a couple of years ago. After this experience, we started to include conditions in our contracts that tolerate statistical margins of error and still define the project as a success.

In terms of cost calculation, we had to teach CIOs and business managers to forget the monthly subscription model for AI and learn to manage the primary unit of exchange in modern AI: the token.

To understand AI costs, executives must understand how large language models process data. AI models do not read full words; instead, they break text, images or code down into “pieces” called tokens. As a baseline, every 100 words process as approximately 130 to 140 tokens. Because the major AI providers use the token as their currency, your business is billed dynamically based on the exact volume of tokens consumed by every query submitted (input) and every response generated (output).

Many leaders believe AI costs are fixed due to flat-rate enterprise tiers ($25–$30/user). This is a temporary illusion. These venture-capital-subsidized rates mask true operational costs and come with dynamic usage limits. Modeling long-term ROI on them guarantees a severe budget shock when true consumption pricing takes over.

The solution is not to halt AI adoption; doing so means losing your competitive edge. Instead, the cost per token must cease to be treated as a technical footnote relegated to the IT department. It must be elevated to a core business variable.

Risks in the AI adoption model

Since the beginning of the AI boom, I have seen all our customers making a critical tactical error that could cost them heavily in the medium term: they are focusing only on operational efficiency (reducing costs with AI).

I have observed that an alarmingly high percentage of companies remain trapped in pilot phases focused exclusively on short-term cost reduction. Bain & Company’s global Automation and AI Pathfinder Survey found that the largest share of companies measuring their AI initiatives (exactly 40%) realized cost reductions of 10% or less, heavily missing their internal targets. Our customers are putting too many resources and effort into marginal financial gains and in doing so, they are jeopardizing their most valuable assets: service quality, resilience and customer trust.

Utilizing AI solely to slash headcount or cut operational corners is a dangerous trap that introduces severe field liabilities. A financial service organization in Latin America announced that they saved $1 million in customer support by replacing humans with AI chatbots. However, the mid-term reality revealed a different story: a damaged brand reputation due to AI errors and an influx of frustrated clients fleeing because the automated system cannot handle special cases.

Putting a company on an extreme AI diet might make it look leaner on next quarter’s financial statement, but over-indexing on cost-cutting will ultimately leave the business too weak to compete when market dynamics shift. We are now inviting our customers to change the question from “How much money will AI save us?” to “How will we leverage AI to exponentially increase the long-term value of our enterprise?”

Deploying enterprise AI is a marathon, not a sprint, and the terrain changes with every mile. The organizations that thrive in this next era will be those that transition from fascination to discipline, treating AI not as a magic bullet for immediate savings, but as a core capability that demands rigorous governance, architectural foresight and cultural maturity. Navigating this shift requires moving past the theoretical hype and anchoring decisions in raw, field-tested reality.

As we continue to deploy these technologies across industries, the blueprint for success is being rewritten in real time. Let’s keep this conversation going as we map out the future of business intelligence together.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Predicting an outage is tricky business, but CIOs might want to circle Oct. 11, 2026, through Jan. 11, 2027, for likely trouble of a potentially widespread and puzzling nature.

That’s because a relatively trivial update to DNSSEC on Oct. 11, one that will take full effect by Jan. 11, is likely to deliver a series of seemingly unrelated system outages. This will come from oceans of dependencies from third-party, shadow, agentic, gen AI, SaaS, homegrown, and legacy apps — among many other quiet executable hiding spots, including virtual environments and containers.

Sai Joshitha Kathari, senior site reliability engineer at payment card giant Visa, says most enterprises have far more DNS-related exposure than they realize because of these many dependencies.

“This has the potential to create real downstream destruction when unresolved failures sit underneath important business functions,” Kathari says. 

The danger is that so many of these issues are either unknown to IT or handled by a third-party vendor and no one in IT has had reason to ask those vendors about DNS updates. 

“The risky areas are usually not the obvious managed DNS services. They are the older internal applications, hardcoded resolvers, containerized workloads, sidecar configurations, custom scripts, partner integrations, VM images, stale base images, and service-to-service dependencies that nobody has touched in a long time,” Kathari explains. “These systems can keep working quietly for years, then fail during a DNS or certificate-related change because they bypassed the normal platform standards.”

Independent technology analyst Carmi Levy says that CIOs need to take this event very seriously. 

“The two-pronged deadline — October 11, 2026, when the new Key Signing Key (KSK) begins signing the root zone, and January 11, 2027, when the old key is retired — should be marked in red on everyone’s calendar, just as December 31, 1999, once was,” Levy says. “Failure to comply could result in websites, critical business applications, and related resources dropping off the face of the Earth once the transition is complete.”

Levy adds: “Custom-built code that lives outside conventional support mechanisms may or may not function when the DNS changes go into effect.”

The DNSSEC update itself is straightforward, but it is also the first significant DNSSEC change — specifically a change in the trust anchor — since 2018. 

The rollout statement noted that “the trust anchor is formally known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) root zone Key Signing Key (KSK). The KSK is the cryptographic key at the core of the DNSSEC trust anchor and is used to verify that DNS responses are legitimate and have not been modified in transit.”

Expect nearly every enterprise to be impacted

Kim Davies, vice president of IANA Services and president of public technical identifiers at ICANN, says the extent of the impact on enterprises is unknowable, given the nature of shadow IT and other edge cases. 

But based on the massive number of dependencies both known and unknown in the typical global enterprise, Davies guesses that just about every enterprise will be impacted, to varying degrees. 

“In highly complex organizations, it is very likely there will be some impact in the corners, in the margins, of the organization,” Davies tells CIO. “DNS is such a core technology that underpins everything.”

As the updates propagate, hiccups will materialize, Davies notes. “When the system cannot validate the [DNS] information, it will treat it as suspect and DNS lookups will fail.”

Visa’s Kathari says, “Enterprises should expect some secondary DNS-related glitches when major DNSSEC-related changes happen, not necessarily because the core infrastructure teams will ignore the update, but because large environments have many hidden dependency paths.”

Making this problem far worse, Kathari notes, is that the glitches will likely initially look like anything other thana DNS glitch. That will force IT staff to waste a vast number of hours chasing causes that ultimately prove to be unrelated to the incidents. 

“The impact for CIOs is that DNS failures rarely announce themselves as DNS failures. They look like application timeouts, broken logins, failed API calls, queue lag, payment failures, partner connectivity issues, or random regional instability,” Kathari explains. “That makes troubleshooting slower because teams may spend hours looking at the application, database, network, or cloud provider before realizing name resolution is part of the failure path.”

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, agrees that IT will likely spin its wheels chasing the wrong ghosts.

“A validation failure rarely stays in its lane. It surfaces as an application error, an API timeout, or a reachability problem, which turns a resolver fault into a coordination failure,” Gogia says. “The application team blames the network, the network team blames the cloud, and the user simply watches work stop.”

“Images and templates are the frontier most teams miss,” Gogia adds. “A resolver fixed in summer can be broken again in October the instant a stale golden image is redeployed, because automation no longer lets configuration drift slowly. It restores yesterday’s assumptions at machine speed.”

It is widely expected that enterprises will not have any problems executing the change or, more likely, relying on their hyperscalers to properly handle the change. That is the concern. 

“CIOs are being distracted so much with AI and this is such a deep in the weeds infrastructure issue that this can and willcatch people off-guard,” Justin Greis, CEO of consulting firm Acceligence, tells CIO. “I think we’ll see a meaningful number of enterprise disruptions associated with the DNSSEC trust anchor rollover. Not because the update itself is especially difficult, but because it will expose weaknesses that already exist inside many organizations.”

Most enterprise IT operations have had no reason to compile a comprehensive list of all DNS dependencies, but many will be instantly discovered in January. 

Potentially widespread fallout

A major retailer, for example, might suddenly be unable to connect with FedEx to arrange for deliveries or a hospital may find that test results are no longer being shared with patient portals. It might manifest as an assembly line that halts because an IIoT component can no longer share files with its vendor system or a truck fleet that stops being tracked. 

“There will almost certainly be systems that fall through the cracks. Some will be legacy applications that rely on outdated DNS configurations that have not been updated in years,” Greis says. “Others will be business-unit-developed tools, contractor-built solutions, embedded systems, manufacturing and industrial systems, or highly customized workloads that operate outside normal IT oversight. These are the types of systems that often surface during infrastructure events like this.”

Greis adds that many enterprises will discover in January problems created by their own automation.

“Over time, enterprises build layers of processes, templates, and deployment mechanisms that are reused across teams and environments,” Greis notes. “Even after DNS infrastructure is updated correctly, older settings can inadvertently be reintroduced through routine updates and system changes, creating intermittent and difficult-to-diagnose failures.”

The good news from this situation is that enterprises are not going to likely lose all DNS access if any of these glitches occur. But that may be of no comfort because even if the disruptions are only with small edge cases, that can still cause massive operational disruptions.

Cricket Liu, EVP and chief evangelist at Infoblox, gives the example of a DNS server that responds to factory-floor system queries.

“Or let’s say this disrupts [an enterprise’s key] SaaS application. All name resolution may stop and it will show a server failure. It will not deliver a response whenever I look anything up. That’s not subtle at all,” Liu says. “It’s highly likely that companies are going to see some effects.”

Back in 2017, the switchover was relatively uneventful, giving some CIOs hope that January 2027 will also be a non-event. But given the technology advancements in the last 10 years and the resulting tidal wave of new enterprise tech dependencies, few are realistically expecting no problems this go around. 

Impossible to predict what will happen

One of the top network experts on DNS effects in enterprises is Geoff Huston, chief scientist at the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), the regional Internet Registry administering IP addresses for the Asia Pacific region.

Huston says it is difficult to project what will happen in January until it happens.

“Just like the last time, we are flying blind with this key roll. Because nothing really terrible happened last time, there is some confidence that nothing terrible will happen this time, but we just can’t tell in advance as there are no good measurement approaches that allow us to peek inside the trust state of recursive resolvers,” he says.

As for potential edge-case glitches, Huston says it is possible, but if third-party vendors do not properly handle the update, there will be other issues as well, as the KSK cryptographic key used within DNSSEC signs and validates the keys that protect DNS records. 

“If it is not standards-compliant, then you have more problems than just the KSK roll,” Huston says, “as it raises the obvious question of ‘What else is not correctly implemented in the DNS resolver that I’m running?’”

As a silver lining, Acceligence’s Greis says any hiccups that result from the DNS KSK update may be a gift in disguise for CIOs. 

“The irony is that some of the most business-critical components in the technology stack are often the least visible because they work in the background,” Greis says. January “may reveal how much modern business resilience depends on infrastructure that many organizations rarely examine until something breaks. For CIOs, that’s the real lesson. This is not fundamentally a story about a DNS update. It is a story about operational visibility, resilience, and governance. Organizations that treat the rollover as a routine infrastructure task will likely complete the update and move on. Organizations that use it as an opportunity to understand and strengthen the foundations of their technology environment may gain far more value than simply avoiding an outage.”

Over the past year, I had the same conversation with almost every team starting an AI initiative. Should we build on Semantic Kernel, AutoGen or Foundry?

At first it felt like the most important architectural decision we’d make. Each framework had its own philosophy, each promised to be the foundation for enterprise AI, and picking the wrong one felt like an expensive mistake. I spent a lot of time helping teams weigh the trade-offs.

Looking back, I think we were asking the wrong question. I certainly was.

I watched teams spend months debating SDKs while the decisions that actually decided whether their applications survived production went unexamined. Some built elaborate orchestration layers for workflows that a few deterministic functions would have handled. Others avoided agent frameworks entirely and later found they’d designed themselves into a corner.

Then Microsoft settled it for us. It introduced the unified Agent Framework, quietly moved Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into maintenance mode, and the debate I’d spent months refereeing was suddenly over. Turns out the answer to “which of the three” was “none of the three, here’s a fourth.” The framework hit version 1.0 and general availability in April 2026, stable across .NET and Python.

What surprised me wasn’t the decision. It was how fast a debate that had eaten so much of our attention stopped mattering. Microsoft changed the menu.

It didn’t change the meal.

The framework was never the hard part

Framework selection dominated almost every early conversation I had about enterprise agents. Which SDK do we standardize on? Which orchestration model gives us the most flexibility? Which one is Microsoft actually betting on?

Fair questions. But after a year of watching these projects play out, I’ve slowly come around to a different view. Those weren’t the questions that decided anything.

The first question I ask now is much smaller. Does this thing actually need an agent?

It sounds obvious, and I still get it wrong sometimes. But it’s the mistake I see most. On one project, a team spent weeks designing a multi-agent workflow for a process that ran the same four steps every time: read a document, validate it, call an API, send a notification. The diagrams looked great. The system in production didn’t. A few well-tested functions would have been easier to build, easier to maintain and a lot easier to trust.

Part of this is just that “agent” has become the word everyone reaches for. Sometimes it’s the right call. Sometimes it’s a workflow we already knew how to build, wearing a newer label. An agent earns its complexity when it genuinely has to decide things you can’t predetermine, choosing between tools, adapting to what it finds, working out its own next step. If you already know every step, you have a workflow, and a workflow is usually the better engineering choice. The consolidation didn’t change that. It just made it easier to see.

What building production agents actually taught me

Once I stopped fixating on frameworks, the same three problems kept showing up. None of them had anything to do with the SDK.

Context beats model choice

Early on I spent a lot of time comparing models, the way you’d agonize over a restaurant menu and then order what you always order. Now I spend most of it thinking about context, which is far less fun and far more useful.

I’ve watched good models fail because they were handed too much, not too little. One team I worked with gave the model access to nearly every internal document they had on the theory that more information meant better answers. It went the other way. Responses got slower, less consistent and sometimes skipped right past the thing that actually mattered. When we cut the context down to only what the task needed, the quality jumped almost immediately. I didn’t predict that. It taught me to be suspicious of “just give it everything.”

The best agent systems I’ve worked on weren’t the ones with the biggest context windows. They were the ones careful about what reached the model, and when. That’s not something the framework hands you.

Failure is where the real work is

Most agent demos look great because they’re built around the happy path. Production doesn’t extend that courtesy.

I remember a project where everything held up in testing. Then a downstream API timed out after the agent had already completed several earlier steps. We couldn’t just restart, because part of the business process had already gone through. We ended up spending far more time on recovery logic than we ever spent on prompts. That project changed how I think about this work. The hard part was never getting the model to make a decision. It was making sure the system didn’t fall apart when reality refused to follow the script.

Tool calls fail partway through. APIs return inconsistent data. Models call the same tool over and over because the last answer wasn’t what they wanted. That’s not the exception; that’s a normal Tuesday. Whether you retry, roll back, pause for a human or push on with partial results is a judgment call, and no framework is going to make it for you.

Identity is the real security boundary

This one surprised me most. The moment an agent stops being a chatbot and starts touching real business systems, identity matters more than orchestration.

Every project gets to the same question eventually. Who is this agent actually acting as? The developer’s credentials? A service account? The user who asked? Get it wrong and you’ve built something autonomous running with more access than any single person should have, which is exactly the kind of thing that looks fine until an audit. The Agent Framework, like most modern tooling, makes it easier to wire agents to tools through standards like the Model Context Protocol. That helps. But where human approval belongs, what needs extra authorization, how much rope to give the thing, those are still yours to decide.

The surprises weren’t technical

Here’s what I didn’t see coming. The hardest part of last year wasn’t technical at all. It was organizational. The moment a team heard “agent,” expectations shifted under everyone’s feet. Business stakeholders started expecting full autonomy. Developers assumed the thing could reason its way through anything. People started designing for flexibility before we’d even agreed on what problem we were solving. The word did damage before any code did. I found myself spending as much time resetting expectations as I did discussing architecture.

Build for change, not for today’s winner

I don’t think the teams that struggled last year picked the wrong framework. Semantic Kernel was reasonable. AutoGen was reasonable. Foundry made sense for plenty of cases. I’d have signed off on any of them.

The ones that got hurt put all their eggs in one framework, treating it as the foundation of the whole system instead of as one more dependency. Microsoft provided a migration path. But teams that had tightly coupled their applications to framework-specific abstractions discovered that migrating and rewriting are not the same thing. That wasn’t Microsoft’s doing. It was their own architecture’s. The teams that moved easily had kept their business logic, prompts and orchestration loose enough to evolve independently of any one SDK. For them, the change was a manageable project, not a teardown.

For what it’s worth, nobody I work with is treating this as an emergency. Most are moving the smaller workloads first, watching how they behave and leaving the production-critical systems alone until they actually understand the new abstractions. That’s the right instinct. And I doubt this is the last consolidation we’ll see, the ecosystem is still young, frameworks will keep absorbing each other and over time the differences between them will be operational more than architectural.

I don’t regret the framework debates, honestly. They were reasonable at the time. What changed wasn’t Microsoft’s roadmap.

It was mine. Watching these systems run in production taught me that the framework is the easiest piece to swap out. Recovery logic, context management, security boundaries, the business workflow itself, those stay with you long after today’s SDK gets replaced by tomorrow’s.

So, Microsoft made one decision easier by turning three frameworks into one. Good. Five years from now we’ll be on different tools, and we’ll still be asking the same handful of questions.

Does this actually need an agent? Does it have the right context? Can it recover when something breaks, because something will? Is it acting as the right person?

Those questions outlast every rewrite. That’s where I’ve learned to put my effort.

Frameworks come and go. Good architecture has to survive all of them.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Late in a large enterprise SAP transformation, the strategic governance conversations began to drift. Instead of executive decisions, we found ourselves debating whether the program needed dedicated testing, whether cutover required a full weekend, whether twenty Agile teams really needed coordination support and whether offshore resources were adding value at all.

The questions were not coming from the delivery teams. They were coming from the executive sponsor.

The sponsor had recently been elevated into a senior leadership role and had never sponsored a technology transformation at this scale. The challenge was not authority. The sponsor had every right to ask any question they wanted. The challenge was that strategic governance had quietly turned into a debate about delivery practices, because the sponsor did not yet have the transformation context to focus the conversation anywhere else.

This is not a story about a bad sponsor. The executive in this case was a capable senior leader with strong judgment and authentic intent. They had been placed into a role they had not yet been prepared for, and the pattern that followed was structural, not personal. It is one of the more common patterns I have observed across enterprise transformation programs, and one of the most consistently misdiagnosed.

Most program failures are not execution failures. They are sponsor mismatches.

When governance becomes a debate about delivery practices

When the sponsor does not understand what an enterprise transformation actually requires, governance forums stop functioning as decision bodies and start functioning as practice debates.

You see it in the questions that get asked. Why do we need a dedicated testing phase? Can the Build timeline be compressed? Why does cutover need a full weekend? Why do we need more Scrum Masters across 20 product teams? Can the US team simply work longer hours instead of using offshore resources? On one program, the sponsor suggested shifting the entire project’s working hours to India time, despite roughly 85 percent of the delivery organization being based in the United States.

None of these questions are unreasonable in isolation. Each one targets a real cost or timeline pressure. The problem is what is missing underneath them: an understanding of the operational risks the original choices were designed to mitigate.

When sponsors ask delivery-practice questions without that context, the program leadership team ends up defending the work instead of advancing it. Decision velocity drops. Trust between the program and its sponsor erodes. Senior delivery talent disengages from governance forums where the conversation never reaches the decisions they need made. What looks from the outside like an active sponsor producing engagement is, from inside the program, an active drain on the cycles needed to deliver.

The compounding cost is not unique to any single program. PMI’s research on executive sponsorship consistently identifies sponsor engagement quality, rather than sponsor presence alone, as one of the strongest predictors of project success. The visible symptom is debate. The actual cost is unmade decisions.

Authority is rarely the issue. Literacy is

When transformations stall under a mismatched sponsor, the diagnostic instinct is to question the sponsor’s authority. Are they senior enough? Do they have the cross-functional reach? Can they unblock?

In most of the programs I have led or advised, authority was not the limiting factor. The sponsor in the SAP program above had ample authority. They could unblock any decision the program needed. What had not been developed was the transformation literacy to know which decisions mattered, which were technical noise and which were execution risks that should not be optimized away.

This is what I have come to think of as the literacy problem. Sponsors elevated into transformation roles often have deep functional expertise (finance, operations, business unit leadership) but limited exposure to the distinct functions of PMO, organizational change management, agile delivery, testing and cutover, and how each one reduces a specific category of implementation risk. They are not expected to be SAP configuration experts. But they need enough transformation literacy to recognize which questions actually belong in a steering committee.

Harvard Business Review’s research on effective executive sponsorship has emphasized that sponsorship effectiveness depends as much on judgment as on authority. Judgment is where literacy becomes operational. A sponsor with authority but limited transformation literacy will optimize for speed and cost in ways that consistently underestimate risk. A sponsor with both will make the tradeoffs the program actually needs.

Prosci’s longstanding benchmark studies on change management have ranked active and visible executive sponsorship as the single greatest contributor to change success for two decades. The word that matters in that finding is active. Active sponsorship without transformation literacy can introduce real cost. Not because the sponsor is acting against the program, but because the optimization choices they make are based on incomplete information about what the program is built to protect against.

Shift the conversation from delivery practices to business risk

When the sponsor relationship is already in place and cannot be changed, the program leadership team has one move that consistently works: shift the conversation.

On the SAP program above, we stopped explaining why the testing phase existed. We started explaining the business risk of reducing it. We stopped debating the number of Scrum Masters. We started connecting delivery capacity to coordination across more than twenty Agile teams and the business cost of losing that coordination. We reframed offshore support as a way to maintain delivery momentum around the clock rather than asking the U.S. team to sustain fifteen-hour days.

The shift is from defending delivery practice to explaining business risk. The sponsor does not need to understand why testing takes the time it does. They need to understand what the program is exposed to if testing is compressed. They do not need to know how many Scrum Masters are statistically optimal for twenty Agile teams. They need to know what coordination breaks when the number is wrong.

This reframing accomplishes two things. First, it brings the conversation back to the level at which sponsors actually make decisions: tradeoffs between business outcomes and business risks. Second, it builds transformation literacy in the sponsor over time, almost as a byproduct. By the third or fourth iteration of business-risk-framed conversations, the sponsor begins to ask the right questions on their own.

In practice, this happens through small but deliberate moves. When the sponsor asks why a phase needs the time it takes, the program lead names two or three things that could go wrong if the time is cut and what each would cost the business. When the sponsor asks why a role is needed, the program lead names the work that would not get done without it. Every delivery-practice question gets converted into a business-risk answer.

The program leadership team’s job is not to make the sponsor an expert in SAP delivery. It is to provide enough transformation context so that executive decisions reflect both business priorities and implementation realities.

There are a few phrases I have used with executive sponsors over the years that capture the underlying issue. The sharpest one:

If the decision has to go above the sponsor, they are not the sponsor.

Sponsorship is defined by what the sponsor can decide without asking someone else. That is the test. Anything else is the appearance of sponsorship, not the substance.

For CIOs supporting enterprise transformation, the implication is direct. Sponsor selection, or sponsor preparation when selection is not an option, is not a hierarchy question. It is a transformation capability question. The same execution discipline that goes into defining decision rights, structuring governance and protecting delivery momentum should apply, with equal rigor, to assessing sponsor fit and building sponsor literacy before the program begins.

A sponsor does not need to be the technical expert. They do need to know when to trust the people who are.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?

Microsoft has released Visual Studio Code 1.130, an update to the code editor that brings several improvements to the Agents window, along with enhancements to the agent host and the terminal.

VS Code 1.130 was released on July 22, one week after VS Code 1.129. Developers can access the release for Windows, Linux, or Mac from code.visualstudio.com.

With the new release, the Agents window gets updates that make it easier to review changes and manage chats. File-level diff statistics help users assess the size of each file’s changes when scanning a multi-file diff. The window also gets a more compact multi-file diff that makes it easier to review changes, Microsoft said. The Agents window is a dedicated window in VS Code that lets users run and track multiple agent sessions in parallel across their projects, without opening each workspace in a separate window.

Also with VS Code 1.130, assisted permissions for agent tool calls are available in the agent host. With assisted permissions, the LLM evaluates the risk of each tool call and decides whether the tool can run or should require the user’s approval. The setting to enable assisted permissions is chat.assistedPermissions.enabled. In another agent host improvement, quick chats running on the agent host now use compact, single-line rows in the sessions list. Regular sessions retain a second line with change statistics, status, and timestamps.

VS Code users now can open file links from Git diff output in the terminal when Git’s diff.mnemonicPrefix option is enabled. VS Code recognizes prefixes such as i/ for the index and w/ for the working tree, and removes the prefix from the link target so the correct file opens. When mnemonic prefixes are enabled, VS Code also recognizes the numeric prefixes produced by git diff --no-index.

Timestamps for chat requests and responses now are displayed when users hover over the message toolbar. You can disable this through the chat.verbose setting.

Check Point has confirmed that a critical security hole in its SmartConsole management tool, one that allows unauthenticated attackers to assume full admin privileges, is now being exploited in the wild. The vulnerability, CVE-2026-16232, was given a CVSS score of 9.3.

In its security alert, Check Point described the bug as one allowing an unauthenticated attacker to “obtain an application login token and use it to login via SmartConsole with full admin privileges and apply changes to the security policy and security configuration.”

The company has released a patch for the bug and also recommends that users “limit Trusted Clients, GUI clients, to trusted IP addresses/subnets.” That approach has always been a best practice, but practical networking realities today make it challenging to maintain. Check Point said that the exploit has impacted ten of its customers, all of whom it had notified directly.

Far worse than most

Frank Dickson, group VP for security at IDC, said this security hole is far worse than most.

“This hits harder than your average CVE because of where it lives,” he said. “The CVE targets the SmartConsole login on Check Point’s Security Management Server, the console that pushes policy to every gateway underneath it. Popping a gateway gets you one lock picked. Popping the management server is more like finding the One Ring: one stolen token to rule every gateway it manages, no need to fight each one individually. The attacker can rewrite policy, open new VPN paths and kill the logging.”

In an interview with CSO Online, Lotem Finkelstein, vice president of research at Check Point, said that the company learned of the vulnerability on Sunday, emailed customers the same day, and released the patch within 72 hours.

But when his team re-reviewed earlier logs, knowing what to look for, they spotted this hole being attacked as early as April, Finkelstein said.

The fact that, over the course of three months, the team only found ten organizations under attack, indicated that it has been very difficult for the attacker to find vulnerable systems, he noted; customers were, in the main, using secure settings to protect themselves.

Nonetheless, Finkelstein said, Check Point considers this hole to be “a severe vulnerability.”

Challenges of IP address restrictions

While it can be technically challenging to keep the IP address allowlists that Check Point recommends current, given DHCP’s ability to easily change those addresses, Assaf Morag, a cybersecurity researcher at Flare, noted that specifically limiting access to a management console is far more critical than limiting overall external access.

“Implementing Trusted Clients as a per-IP allowlist is impractical,” he said, but that is not the case with restricting management access. “The more scalable solution is to restrict access based on trusted administrative network segments such as VPN pools, management VLANs, or jump hosts rather than maintaining lists of individual DHCP-assigned client addresses,” he explained. “That gives you the security benefit without creating a full-time administrative task. Maintaining allowlists for individual hosts is much more practical when those hosts have stable, predictable IP addresses, rather than dynamically assigned DHCP addresses.”

Pieter Arntz, malware intelligence researcher at Malwarebytes, also noted that the constantly changing nature of global IP addresses can prove annoying to IT teams. Stressing that he is not familiar with Check Point’s specific settings, he noted, “Certain settings are a nuisance when applied strictly, and at some point the IT staff gets tired of constantly tweaking and they abandon the most secure path.”

Ideal platform for long-term attacks

Mike Wilkes, enterprise CISO at Aikido Security,  agreed that the severity and exposure of this hole is alarming.

“This is exactly the kind of vulnerability that keeps CISOs awake at night because it strikes at the one system that is supposed to stand between the attacker and everything else. An authentication bypass that grants administrative control of a perimeter firewall isn’t just another CVE to patch. It’s an invitation for an adversary to rewrite the rules of the network itself,” he said. “The uncomfortable reality is that nobody runs a CrowdStrike agent on their firewall. Once an attacker owns an edge device, they gain a uniquely privileged position that often falls outside the visibility of traditional endpoint security, making it an ideal platform for persistence, credential theft, traffic manipulation, and long-term espionage.”

IDC’s Dickson strongly encouraged CISOs to deploy the patch, not to just change settings to mitigate the issue. 

“Apply the actual hotfix,” he said. “Don’t just restrict Trusted Client IPs and call it done. That’s a stopgap, not a fix. Any internet-facing management console, Check Point or otherwise, is a five-alarm architecture problem independent of this CVE.”

And, he added, “since attackers here can disable logging, audit admin activity going back before the bug surfaced. Quiet logs aren’t proof nothing happened. This is the recurring theme with ‘single pane of glass’ security tools: the console built to make everything easier to run is also the one thing you really don’t want someone else driving.”

AMD executives took to the stage at its Advancing AI 2026 event in San Francisco today to detail the company’s next generation of AI infrastructure solutions, from Instinct MI455X AI accelerator GPUs and 6th Gen EPYC “Venice” CPUs, to Pensando networking, ROCm.AI software and its Helios rack-scale platform that ties it all together.

AMD has been working towards rack-scale AI system solutions for years. Its ZT Systems acquisition last year added valuable engineering talent and intellectual property that is now finally bearing the real fruits. Its Helios AI platform is a major platform evolution for AMD, with shipments scheduled to begin in the second half of this year (which is here and now).

The announcements at Advancing AI show how the company has engineered its AI platform solutions for large reasoning models, sustained inference and agentic workflows. These workloads pressure memory capacity, data movement, networking and CPU orchestration. AMD’s approach is to keep as much data close to the compute engines as possible and move it more efficiently throughout the system, but there’s deeper nuance here that’s obvious versus AMD’s chief rival, NVIDIA.  

AMD’s MI455X targets the AI memory wall

The Instinct MI455X GPU is the compute engine that fuels the Helios rack, and the first GPU based on AMD’s new CDNA 5 architecture. Built with a modular mix of 2nm and 3nm chiplets, it carries 432GB of HBM4 and 23.3TB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

Compared to AMD’s current MI355X, the MI455X offers 1.5 times the memory capacity, up to 2.9 times the peak memory bandwidth and up to four times the peak matrix performance with MXFP4 and MXFP8 data types, which are lower-precision numerical formats designed to accelerate AI processing while reducing memory demands. With MXFP6 (6-bit floating point), performance is rated at up to twice that of MI355X.

AMD also shared some actual, measured internal results using production silicon. The company claims MI455X delivers 3.8 times higher FP8 decode performance, 3.5 times more measured FP4 compute performance and between 2.5 and 3.5 times more networking bandwidth than MI355X, depending on the transfer path tested. Those figures provide more context than just numerical specifications, though they remain AMD-provided comparisons that will need independent validation.

AMD

The architectural choices behind the numbers are important. Reasoning models and long context windows require sizeable KV caches for maintaining AI attention states, while mixture-of-experts models frequently move large amounts of data across accelerators. MI455X should let more model data, activation states and cache remain local. New dedicated IP in hardware can transfer data while the GPU continues processing, and expanded cache and multicast capabilities are designed to reduce redundant data movement to further improve efficiency.

The aforementioned lower-precision formats can also raise throughput and reduce memory use, but model developers still have to determine where they can be applied without unacceptable accuracy loss.

AMD’s Helios rack takes aim at Vera Rubin

Dave Altavilla

Helios is AMD’s primary rack-scale competitor to NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin platform. Each liquid-cooled rack combines 72 MI455X GPUs, 18 single-socket Venice host CPUs and Pensando networking technologies.

In its most complete, premium configuration, AMD rates Helios for 2.9 exaflops of low-precision AI compute, with 31TB of aggregate HBM4 capacity, 1.7PB/s of memory bandwidth, 260TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth and 43TB/s of scale-out bandwidth.

These are formidable figures, but they are technical specifications rather than actual application benchmarks. The more consequential development is AMD’s move from collections of eight-GPU servers to a 72-GPU shared-memory domain. Models too large for one node can operate across the rack without treating every exchange as a scale-out networking transaction, which benefits large-model inference as well as training.

AMD uses UALink over Ethernet, or UALoE, for an open standard scale-up fabric. Each MI455X provides 3.6TB/s of bidirectional scale-up bandwidth, while the complete rack delivers all-to-all connectivity through a single switch layer. AMD also claims six times more scale-out bandwidth per GPU than MI355X when MI455X is configured with three Pensando Vulcano 800 AI NICs.

While open standards give cloud providers more control over suppliers and system design, AMD and its partners now have to prove those components can deliver the predictable performance, reliability and deployment experience customers expect from a tightly controlled, more vertically integrated platform.

Finally, AMD designed Helios with automatic rerouting around failed links, virtual rack partitions, tray-level serviceability and rack-wide power, cooling and health monitoring. Major hyperscalers and potentially large-scale enterprise customers will likely key in on these capabilities, which can affect the availability, total cost and consistency of the AI services they consume.

Kind of like cowbell, AMD Venice gives agentic AI more CPU

AMD

AMD’s agentic CPU messaging regarding its upcoming Venice-based EPYC processors is mostly marketing speak, but the underlying requirement is very real. An AI agent can invoke retrieval, databases, security checks, code execution and other tools before a GPU generates a response. Running many agents concurrently increases the amount of conventional compute requirements surrounding the accelerators.

Venice scales to 256 Zen 6 cores with support for 512 threads, 16 memory channels, up to 1GB of L3 cache per socket, along with PCIe 6.0 and CXL 3.1 connectivity. AMD is also offering several Venice configurations for other applications, including general-purpose servers, high-frequency workloads, GPU hosts and high-density CPU sandbox systems used to execute agent tools.

Treating the CPU solely as a GPU host understates its role. Gateways, tokenization, vector search, databases and short-lived code execution stress different mixes of per-core performance, thread count, memory bandwidth and I/O. Specifically, AMD’s internal testing shows Venice significantly outperforming its current EPYC 9965 Turin CPU across five parts of the agentic AI pipeline, including gateway processing, context assembly, vector search, enterprise applications and short-lived tool execution. Individual gains vary by workload, but AMD details the overall generational improvement at up to a 1.7 times lift. As with the MI455X figures though, these comparisons come from AMD and will require independent validation.

Pensando networking and ROCm software advance

Keeping GPUs fed with data and coordinating traffic across racks directly affects utilization and operating costs. In fact, GPU utilization is a pretty sad state of affairs currently for some of the major frontier model providers.

As such, Pensando networking has become central to AMD’s roadmap. Helios can connect each MI455X to as many as three 800Gbps Vulcano AI NICs, while Salina DPUs handle front-end networking and infrastructure services.

On the software side, which is an equally critical component, AMD also introduced ROCm.AI, an AI-assisted development layer due to arrive in August. It includes reusable skills for coding agents, simplified management and Hyperloom, which can profile workloads, tune serving configurations, modify kernels and validate results.

These tools address two persistent AMD challenges: developer efficiency and ease of use, and software tuning. Automated optimization still has to produce repeatable gains without creating hard-to-maintain code, however. And while ROCm has progressed significantly over the last few years, NVIDIA’s CUDA retains an advantage in maturity, tooling and developer familiarity.

Customer commitments underscore rack-scale confidence

AMD now has commitments that give its MI450 generation and Helios considerably more weight. Meta and OpenAI have announced multi-generation agreements composed of up to 6GW of AMD compute capacity, with initial 1GW deployments planned for the second half of 2026.

Oracle plans a 50,000-GPU public cloud cluster beginning in the third quarter, while Microsoft will deploy Helios for Azure AI inference. Finally, just before the AMD event, Anthropic announced a strategic partnership for up to 2 Gigawatts of AMD-fueled AI compute, with its first gigawatt expected online in the first half of 2027.

Commitments of this scale reflect confidence in more than just MI455X performance. These customers are evaluating the complete architecture, including Venice CPUs, Pensando networking, ROCm software, rack integration, serviceability and AMD’s ability to deliver and execute across multiple product generations.

There is some financial alignment behind the agreements as well. AMD issued OpenAI performance-based warrants and committed to investing up to $5 billion in Anthropic. That context matters when evaluating these deals as market validation, but these planned deployments are substantial nonetheless and put Helios on a much stronger foundation as it begins shipping.

AMD expands its robotics and embedded foundation

AMD also expanded its physical AI portfolio, building on credible traction from its Xilinx-derived Kria adaptive system-on-modules and embedded technologies that are already powering robotics, machine vision and industrial automation applications.

The new Ryzen AI Embedded X100 combines up to 16 Zen 5 CPU cores, integrated Radeon graphics, a second-generation NPU and as much as 128GB of unified LPDDR5X memory shared across its compute engines. To me this looks a lot like a repackaging and optimization of the company’s Strix Halo platform, but with specific optimizations for the embedded space. Regardless, AMD is pairing X100 with the Kria AI Robotics Developer Platform, which includes a System Module or SOM, and a new Robotics Partner Network spanning hardware, software and platform providers.

Samples began shipping in June, with full production expected in the fourth quarter. This broader objective is to give developers a path across AMD x86 CPUs, GPUs, NPUs and FPGAs for real-time autonomous systems, rather than requiring them to assemble those hardware engines and software components independently.

Execution for AMD is now the test

AMD has assembled a credible platform for the burgeoning agentic AI market that’s blowing up currently with no signs of stopping. MI455X addresses memory and data movement, Venice handles dense agentic CPU workloads, Pensando networking connects global system resources, and ROCm.AI addresses software complexity. Finally, Helios assembles these components into a true competitive threat for NVIDIA’s latest Vera Rubin platform.

AMD’s open architecture may appeal to customers seeking supplier choice, but openness must also translate into reliable deployments, competitive total cost and software that does not require a significant rip-up. NVIDIA enters this cycle with a stronger ecosystem and far more rack-scale deployment experience. The true test will be how easily and reliably customers can integrate, operate and maintain these AMD solutions at scale.

As it stands, AMD now has major customers and a clearly defined architecture with systems engineering expertise behind it. Delivering Helios on schedule and showing that its performance claims translate into a real production workload throughput advantage and total cost of ownership gains will determine how much the competitive gap narrows. And of course, this is in a market that is clamoring for ever-more compute resources with a seemingly insatiable demand for AI services and capacity. That’s an environment for big iron success. Now AMD just has to deliver optimized, turnkey AI platforms. This is far easier said than done, but time will soon tell as deployments take shape this year.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?