In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

• Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
• Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
• Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
• Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
• Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is.  Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

1. Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
2. Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
3. Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
4. Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
5. Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
6. Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

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.

It’s difficult to ignore the fact that Apple seems to have turned its MacBook Neo into a weapon to promote platform growth, with enough performance under the hood to make competitors seem inferior.

And even as the PC industry moves to try to compete with Apple’s last huge Mac success, the company is already planning a powerful follow-up.

That points to the discipline Apple has applied to the Mac since the introduction of Apple Silicon. The company has built a clear product roadmap, strong entry-level pricing, and steady performance gains. This focus is now paying dividends, giving people the impetus to keep placing their trust in Apple and its Macs — even as the industry raises prices in the face of RAMageddon and price increases. 

The numbers don’t lie

“Apple’s recent price increase seems to be an inevitable response to these cost increases. In the second half of the year, other PC OEMs are expected to continue to raise prices, and the overall ASP increase is expected to continue,” Counterpoint said in a post Wednesday. The researcher tells us global PC shipments shrank 4% in the second quarter of 2026 as rising costs hit demand. The Mac maker, by contrast, moved in the opposite direction, generating 13% growth in the quarter — mainly on the back of the MacBook Neo introduction. 

Recent IDC data gives Apple 10.1% year-over-year growth and just under 10% (9.9% to be exact) of the worldwide PC market, even as the overall market declined 4.9%.

“With emerging supply chain and tariff challenges inflating memory prices…, Apple’s incredibly aggressive price-point for the MacBook Neo makes its release feel all the more like a gut punch to one of the PC market’s most valuable price tiers,” Futurum Research Director Olivier Blanchard said when the Neo was released. 

Neo 2.0 is already coming

In the immediate future, as competitors raise prices on the PCs that compete with Apple’s lower-cost device, Cupertino is already plotting the path toward MacBook Neo 2. Reports claim this will debut in March in new colors and use the A19 Pro chip from the iPhone 17 Pro, with performance boosted by slightly more unified memory (12GB, rather than 8GB). That’ll make it a much better Mac, likely with 10-15% performance gains and the ability to run Apple Intelligence, making it the best and most affordable AI PC in its class.

Just four months after the Neo’s rollout, Apple is already in position to leak rumors of an even more computationally capable follow-up, while competitors struggle to compete with the original on performance, build quality, and price. Still, the Neo might get more expensive, reporting warns, with the lowest-price 256GB model now gone, making the $599 Mac a mirage we can only wistfully hope to see again. 

That might matter less in context, as PC makers everywhere boost prices while RAM, chips, and storage prices head north, along with transport, logistics, and energy costs. “While [Apple] did raise prices in line with the broader market, it still remains well positioned against rivals facing the same cost pressures,” said Jean Philippe Bouchard, vice president for consumer devices at IDC. 

“As market conditions continue to worsen, the importance of supply chain management and capabilities are increasingly important,” Bouchard said. “The largest vendors, with their buying power and long-standing supplier ties, are best positioned to take share from smaller rivals.”

This was never about luck

This isn’t solely a market take about competition, it’s about planning.

Few in the industry seemed prepared for the massive memory price increases that hit this year. Apple clearly planned its low-cost Mac well before that happened, hoping to seize the PC market at the low-mid-range. This is precisely what it seems to have done, what it continues to do, and what it will continue to do.

The recent reports that it has a successor planned shows the breadth of the Mac company’s strategic vision, as Apple has quite clearly sought to fully exploit the failings of Windows and the internal contradictions of a value-conscious industry in stiff competition with itself.

With the first M-series Macs about to enter the replacement cycle, Apple has built a market it can capitalize on for at least a decade, meaning it already has a vision for PC sales that extends at least as far. That’s the kind of road map corporate purchasers want when they make platform deployment decisions, which is why Apple’s 10% share gains are the beginning of even more significant market change. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

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.

It’s difficult to ignore the fact that Apple seems to have turned its MacBook Neo into a weapon to promote platform growth, with enough performance under the hood to make competitors seem inferior.

And even as the PC industry moves to try to compete with Apple’s last huge Mac success, the company is already planning a powerful follow-up.

That points to the discipline Apple has applied to the Mac since the introduction of Apple Silicon. The company has built a clear product roadmap, strong entry-level pricing, and steady performance gains. This focus is now paying dividends, giving people the impetus to keep placing their trust in Apple and its Macs — even as the industry raises prices in the face of RAMageddon and price increases. 

The numbers don’t lie

“Apple’s recent price increase seems to be an inevitable response to these cost increases. In the second half of the year, other PC OEMs are expected to continue to raise prices, and the overall ASP increase is expected to continue,” Counterpoint said. The researcher tells us global PC shipments shrank 4% in the second quarter of 2026 as rising costs hit demand. The Mac maker, by contrast, moved in the opposite direction, generating 13% growth in the quarter — mainly on the back of the MacBook Neo introduction. 

Recent IDC data gives Apple 10.1% year-over-year growth and just under 10% (9.9% to be exact) of the worldwide PC market, even as the overall market declined 4.9%.

“With emerging supply chain and tariff challenges inflating memory prices…, Apple’s incredibly aggressive price-point for the MacBook Neo makes its release feel all the more like a gut punch to one of the PC market’s most valuable price tiers,” Futurum Research Director Olivier Blanchard said when the Neo was released. 

Neo 2.0 is already coming

In the immediate future, as competitors raise prices on the PCs that compete with Apple’s lower-cost device, Cupertino is already plotting the path toward MacBook Neo 2. Reports claim this will debut in March in new colors and use the A19 Pro chip from the iPhone 17 Pro, with performance boosted by slightly more unified memory (12GB, rather than 8GB). That’ll make it a much better Mac, likely with 10-15% performance gains and the ability to run Apple Intelligence, making it the best and most affordable AI PC in its class.

Just four months after the Neo’s rollout, Apple is already in position to leak rumors of an even more computationally capable follow-up, while competitors struggle to compete with the original on performance, build quality, and price. Still, the Neo might get more expensive, reporting warns, with the lowest-price 256GB model now gone, making the $599 Mac a mirage we can only wistfully hope to see again. 

That might matter less in context, as PC makers everywhere boost prices while RAM, chips, and storage prices head north, along with transport, logistics, and energy costs. “While [Apple] did raise prices in line with the broader market, it still remains well positioned against rivals facing the same cost pressures,” said Jean Philippe Bouchard, vice president for consumer devices at IDC. 

“As market conditions continue to worsen, the importance of supply chain management and capabilities are increasingly important,” Bouchard said. “The largest vendors, with their buying power and long-standing supplier ties, are best positioned to take share from smaller rivals.”

This was never about luck

This isn’t solely a market take about competition, it’s about planning.

Few in the industry seemed prepared for the massive memory price increases that hit this year. Apple clearly planned its low-cost Mac well before that happened, hoping to seize the PC market at the low-mid-range. This is precisely what it seems to have done, what it continues to do, and what it will continue to do.

The recent reports that it has a successor planned shows the breadth of the Mac company’s strategic vision, as Apple has quite clearly sought to fully exploit the failings of Windows and the internal contradictions of a value-conscious industry in stiff competition with itself.

With the first M-series Macs about to enter the replacement cycle, Apple has built a market it can capitalize on for at least a decade, meaning it already has a vision for PC sales that extends at least as far. That’s the kind of road map corporate purchasers want when they make platform deployment decisions, which is why Apple’s 10% share gains are the beginning of even more significant market change. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to my daily Apple-related news summaries at The Core.

In public-sector and regulated-cloud work, I learned that sovereignty rarely starts as a national strategy. It starts as an auditor’s question: Who can prove where the data went, which system made the decision and what changes when the vendor or infrastructure does? That question is now moving into AI, and most sovereign-AI debates answer the wrong version of it.

They ask whether a country can build its own model on domestic data and hardware. For the United States and China, which together hold more than 90% of global AI data-center capacity, per a January 2026 Tony Blair Institute analysis, that question is worth asking. However, for almost every other government, it is the wrong place to start. The operative question is narrower: Once AI is embedded in public services, who controls the stack?

The 5 layers of public-sector control

For a CIO, sovereign AI means enforceable control across the AI lifecycle; model ownership is a separate question. Control has five layers:

• Data control: Where sensitive public data sits, and whether it can train a vendor’s model.
• Model control: Which models clear which workloads, and under what validation.
• Infrastructure control: Whether critical workloads run in approved environments.
• Operational control: Whether AI-assisted actions are logged, monitored and reversible.
• Vendor control: Whether the agency keeps portability, audit rights and a real exit.

Those five layers are the control plane for public-service AI. Floyd Dcosta recently made the enterprise case in “AI without sovereignty is just outsourced intelligence”: capability is what a tool can do; authority over how and when it does it is something a buyer can quietly lose. For public services, losing that authority plays out in the public eye.

Public-sector AI risk differs from enterprise risk. A retailer’s bad recommendation costs a sale; a government’s AI touches benefits, tax enforcement, policing and emergency response, raising the bar to due process, records retention and continuity of operations. A government that cannot reconstruct an AI-assisted decision lacks operational sovereignty, even in a domestic data center.

Evaluating risk: Concentration, jurisdiction and shadow AI

Foreign dependency is a real risk, but the exposure that matters is a sudden cutoff: A model you cannot audit, switch or exit, shut off by someone else’s order. A vendor’s nationality is a poor guide to that risk; control is.  Two markers matter. The first is concentration. In July 2024, a single faulty CrowdStrike update crashed about 8.5 million Windows machines, disrupting airlines, hospitals, banks and governments worldwide. No attacker was involved; one homogeneous dependency failed everywhere at once. The lesson points away from vendor nationality and toward uniformity as the fault line, making portability and provider diversity resilience controls.

The second is jurisdiction. In June 2025, Microsoft’s legal director for France told a Senate inquiry, under oath, that it could not guarantee that French public-sector data, even in French data centers, would be protected against US demands under the 2018 CLOUD Act. No such request had been made, and EU data has stayed in the EU since January 2025; senators called the assurance purely declarative. For the most sensitive data, residency does not equal control; the parent’s jurisdiction can matter as much as the server’s. Three US hyperscalers hold about 70% of the European cloud market, while European providers’ share fell from 29% in 2017 to roughly 15%. Concentration plus jurisdiction is the exposure a CIO must price. I have watched teams treat vendor selection as the moment risk was solved; it rarely was.

The wrong response is self-isolation. Most countries will never build frontier models, advanced chips, hyperscale clouds and talent pipelines at once; the Tony Blair Institute calls full self-sufficiency “too expensive, too slow and, for most countries, simply impossible.” The better test is workload sensitivity. Low-risk uses, such as drafting, translation and summarization, can run on commercial platforms with controls; high-risk uses, such as benefits eligibility, fraud investigation and healthcare triage, demand stricter control over data, model behavior and auditability.

Mandating domestic-only provision before a competitive option exists inverts sovereignty. Europe 2031, a five-year scenario from June 2026 by European technologists and policy researchers, illustrates the failure mode: A 2027 “buy European” mandate lands as offensive cyber capability spreads, and agencies that switched to weaker providers are locked out and paying ransoms. The scenario is fiction; the mechanism is not. Leverage comes from being indispensable, not half-hearted self-sufficiency. The closer-to-home effect is shadow AI: Mandate an inferior sanctioned tool and staff bypass it, the way shadow IT grows up around tools people find too slow. A rule that pushes sensitive work into ungoverned shadow AI reduces control instead of adding it.

Regulation and data-residency rules belong in any serious strategy, but carry failure modes. Blanket localization raises hosting costs and slows adoption without guaranteeing control, and a “sovereign cloud” on a foreign parent’s stack can amount to sovereignty theater. The more useful pattern tiers requirements by sensitivity. India’s BHASHINI shows the application layer done well: A public platform serving 100 million-plus inferences a month across 22-plus languages on a vendor- and cloud-agnostic design that keeps data and switching rights public. Sovereignty resides in the portability, not in a national model.

Building an operational sovereignty strategy

Public trust is the constraint sovereignty rhetoric tends to skip. The OECD’s 2025 review of government AI warns that opaque systems make AI-assisted decisions hard to explain and can give public servants false confidence in tools that fail quietly. State-controlled AI is the same problem from the other side: A government that deploys models against its own citizens without audit or record has gained control and lost accountability. An agency that can log, explain and reverse an AI-assisted action can defend it to citizens, courts, auditors and elected officials. If it cannot, it has bought access and called it sovereignty.

None of this is new. AI sovereignty repeats earlier fights over cloud, telecom, semiconductors and cybersecurity. Europe’s flagship cloud project, GAIA-X, became a cautionary tale; the Dutch technologist Bert Hubert called it an “expensive distraction” that produced no European cloud, the familiar result of ambition without absorptive capacity. Cloud taught governments that outsourcing infrastructure does not outsource accountability; telecom, that vendor dependency becomes strategic exposure; chips, that supply chains matter before a crisis; cybersecurity, that trust must be verified continuously. AI inherits all four at once.

Over the next five to ten years, some countries will build national platforms, more will build trusted cloud and trusted model regimes, and most will run hybrids that pair domestic data control with global model access. Trade policy will harden those choices: Export controls on compute and data-localization rules will pull the vendor market into blocs that track alliances more than open markets. For a CIO, that turns a vendor and hosting decision into a five-year bet on whose rules and supply chains will still hold. The ones that succeed will treat sovereignty as an operating requirement, backed by leverage, not a slogan. Start with the control plane before the model: Most agencies will never own the model, and the controls are what decide whether the AI they do run stays accountable. Even when procurement policy is dictated from above, these questions remain within the CIO’s authority:

1. Can we classify AI workloads by public-service risk?
2. Can we prove where sensitive data goes across training, retrieval, inference, logging and retention?
3. Can we restrict which models are approved for which data classes and functions?
4. Can we reconstruct an AI-assisted action in enough detail to explain it?
5. Can we change providers without losing continuity or institutional knowledge?
6. Can we explain the system to citizens, regulators, auditors and elected officials?

A “no” to any of these does not mean the agency lacks AI. It means the agency has access it does not yet control. Public institutions can use global innovation without surrendering public authority, but only once they know what to hold, what to rent and where dependency turns into risk.

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

I use a very cool and relatively new web framework called Astro. The keen insight that the Astro team had was that most websites are made up of static content, so they made it really easy to add content to a website. To add a blog post to my personal website, all I have to do is create a Markdown file with some front matter, deploy it, and the blog post automatically appears. If I need to reach deeper for more dynamic functionality, I can easily do that with TypeScript, React, or almost any other framework. It’s really cool.

And these days, I really don’t write any code. Claude Code does most (all?) of the work. Since Astro is an open-source project and has excellent documentation, Claude knows all about how Astro works. It has no trouble at all managing my site and making the improvements I ask for.  

And that got me thinking, how does Astro get built? Is the Astro team building with agentic coding? Astro itself has many dependencies, including big projects like Vite and Node. And of course, Vite and Node have dependencies, too. Are those dependencies being developed by hand, or are those development teams also using AI agents to code?

My curiosity got the best of me, and I asked Claude to dig deeper. It turns out that the Astro repository has an AGENTS.md file, and some of the commits even have commit message trailers indicating that they were at least co-authored by Claude and GitHub Copilot. Further down, there is a .agents/skills directory with skills covering development, merging, triage, and more. I poked around for a look, and someone has done a great job building agentic support.

Now my interest is really piqued, and further investigation reveals quite a bit of interesting stuff. About a year ago, documentation started appearing about how to build Astro sites with coding agents.  Around that same time, the docs team released an MCP server that gives developers coding agents deeper, easier access to the Astro documentation.  

And there are small steps in the Astro codebase that indicate it is “agentic ready.” For instance, the command-line development server can tell when it is being started by an agent, and the application itself can tell if it is being driven by an agent. Small things, but steps in the direction of embracing Astro developers who use coding agents. 

Okay, that was a fun spelunking trip. But so what?

The “so what” is that code is going to be commoditized. As an Astro developer I am using AI agents pretty much all of the time. The Astro development team is starting to use AI agents more and more. The folks building the Astro dependencies are using AI agents. Shoot, the people building Claude Code and the agents themselves are “eating their own dogfood” and using their own tools to build the next frontier model. Before we know it, it will be turtles all the way down. 

No one says “who generated that electricity?” or “who wove the fabric in that shirt?” any more. And it won’t be long before no one says “Who wrote the code for that app?” because it won’t matter. Just as we don’t look at the assembly code written by our compilers, we’ll stop looking at the “regular” code written by our agents. I’m not even sure anyone is writing assembly code anymore. Soon we’ll be saying that about TypeScript, Python, and C++.

The emergence of artificial intelligence is beginning to expose a profound weakness in the way modern enterprises measure performance.

For decades, business evaluation systems have been built around the logic of the industrial and transactional economy. Revenue growth, operating margins, earnings per share, labor productivity, return on investment and market share became the dominant indicators of organizational success because they reflected the economic realities of a world in which value creation was primarily tied to physical production, labor efficiency, scale and later the automation of information processing. AI, however, is altering the very structure of enterprise value creation, and in doing so it is creating a widening separation between perceived future value and actual realized economic performance.

Much of the current discussion surrounding AI performance measurement reflects this tension. The overwhelming majority of AI-related metrics being celebrated today are not direct measures of realized enterprise outcomes. They are largely indicators of capability formation, market positioning, experimentation or investor signaling. Metrics such as AI spending levels, number of AI use cases, GPUs deployed, copilots implemented, models placed into production, AI hiring growth or agentic AI pilots all serve primarily as proxies for anticipated future advantage. These indicators may influence stock valuations, analyst sentiment and strategic narratives, but their relationship to measurable operational performance is often indirect, delayed or in some cases entirely speculative.

This distinction is critically important because capital markets have historically rewarded the expectation of technological transformation long before actual economic results materialized. During previous technological revolutions—including electrification, enterprise resource planning, the internet, cloud computing and mobile platforms—valuation expansion frequently preceded measurable productivity gains by many years. The market priced future possibility before operational economics caught up. In many instances, investors rewarded firms simply for appearing strategically aligned with the dominant technological shift of the era. AI appears to be following a similar trajectory.

The phenomenon resembles the famous productivity paradox articulated by economist Robert Solow, who observed that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” AI today is visible everywhere: in investor presentations, earnings calls, technology conferences, product announcements and boardroom strategies. Yet in many industries, its measurable contribution to enterprise productivity, profitability or economic resilience remains difficult to isolate with precision. This does not necessarily mean AI lacks value. Rather, it reflects the reality that traditional accounting and performance systems were never designed to measure the forms of value AI increasingly produces.

Artificial intelligence creates benefits that are often diffuse, cumulative and difficult to attribute directly to financial outcomes. AI may improve forecasting accuracy, reduce fraud, accelerate decision cycles, augment employee effectiveness, improve customer interactions, optimize logistics or enhance cybersecurity resilience. These benefits frequently manifest as second-order effects distributed across the enterprise rather than as immediately visible financial events. The causal chain between AI investment and realized business performance can therefore become extraordinarily difficult to quantify. A company may become operationally more intelligent without immediately becoming measurably more profitable.

At the same time, AI introduces a profound danger: organizations may increasingly optimize for technological narrative rather than durable enterprise economics. Many firms today are pursuing AI primarily because markets reward the appearance of AI leadership. Investor enthusiasm, analyst pressure and competitive fear create incentives to demonstrate visible AI activity regardless of whether measurable economic value has actually been achieved. In this environment, AI metrics can easily become instruments of valuation signaling rather than instruments of operational truth.

This distinction between signaling and substance may become one of the defining economic challenges of the AI era. An organization may announce aggressive AI deployment programs, reduce headcount and report short-term margin improvements while simultaneously increasing hidden forms of technological fragility. Infrastructure costs may rise dramatically as GPU consumption, cloud usage, data engineering requirements and cybersecurity complexity expand. Technical debt may accelerate as AI-generated code proliferates without sufficient architectural discipline. Institutional knowledge may erode as organizations become excessively dependent on opaque models and automated systems. Long-term innovation capacity may weaken if enterprises divert disproportionate resources toward maintaining internally generated AI systems rather than building new strategic capabilities.

What measuring AI value might actually look like

The distinction between AI activity and AI value becomes clearer when viewed through the kinds of measures organizations choose to track. Many enterprises today emphasize indicators such as the number of AI models deployed, copilots implemented, agents created, prompts executed, tokens consumed or employees using AI tools. These metrics demonstrate adoption and technological activity, but they reveal relatively little about whether AI is producing meaningful business outcomes.

Measures of enterprise value look quite different. A manufacturer might evaluate whether AI improves demand forecasting accuracy enough to reduce inventory carrying costs or stockouts. A financial institution might measure whether AI meaningfully lowers fraud losses, accelerates loan processing or improves regulatory compliance. A healthcare provider could assess reductions in administrative burden, faster clinical decision support or improvements in patient throughput. In each case, the objective is not simply to measure AI deployment, but to determine whether AI creates measurable improvements in operational performance, economic outcomes or organizational resilience.

Ultimately, organizations may need to ask a different question: not “How much AI are we using?” but “How much business value does each unit of AI investment create?” That shift—from measuring technological activity to measuring economic outcomes—may become one of the defining management disciplines of the AI era.

Under traditional accounting frameworks, many of these deteriorations remain largely invisible. Quarterly earnings may improve even as underlying enterprise resilience declines. Stock prices may rise even as operational complexity becomes increasingly unsustainable. In this sense, the AI era threatens to widen the gap between financial appearance and organizational reality.

This is why the future of enterprise measurement cannot simply involve adding AI metrics to existing financial scorecards. The challenge is far deeper. AI forces a reconsideration of what business performance actually means. Historically, enterprises were measured largely through static indicators of efficiency and output. Increasingly, however, competitive advantage may depend less on traditional efficiency and more on adaptive intelligence: the ability of an organization to learn faster, make better decisions, integrate human and machine capabilities effectively, manage technological complexity sustainably and convert computational power into durable economic outcomes.

The most important future performance measures may therefore revolve around questions traditional accounting rarely addresses. How effectively does an enterprise convert technology investment into sustainable business capability? How economically efficient are its AI operations relative to the value they generate? How resilient is the organization to AI failure, cybersecurity disruption or infrastructure inflation? How successfully does it preserve and amplify human expertise rather than simply eliminate labor? How rapidly can it learn, adapt and operationalize new knowledge?

These are not merely technology questions. They are questions of enterprise economics, organizational sustainability and long-term competitive viability.

The companies that ultimately succeed in the AI era may not be those with the largest AI budgets, the greatest number of pilots or the most aggressive automation programs. They may instead be the firms that best understand the economics of technological capability itself: organizations capable of balancing innovation with resilience, automation with human augmentation and technological ambition with sustainable operational design.

The coming decade is therefore likely to produce a widening divide between enterprises optimizing for AI-driven valuation narratives and enterprises optimizing for measurable, durable economic performance. In the short term, these may appear to be the same thing.

Over time, however, the distinction will become increasingly visible. Some organizations will discover that AI has enhanced genuine enterprise capability. Others will discover that they merely optimized the appearance of transformation while silently accumulating new forms of economic and operational risk.

Artificial intelligence is not simply changing business operations. It is exposing the inadequacy of many of the measures used to evaluate business success itself. The central challenge of the AI economy may ultimately become not whether organizations adopt AI, but whether they can distinguish between technological activity and actual economic value creation.

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

Dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI have been put on notice after Apple reportedly sent legal letters ordering them to preserve documents and communications relevant to its trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI. 

The Financial Times reports that “around 40” employees have been targeted with these letters, which repeat Apple’s claim that its confidential information might have been exfiltrated, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.”  The letters also require them to arrange to meet with Apple’s lawyers.

The underlying lawsuit

This comes on the heels of Apple’s explosive lawsuit against OpenAI in which Apple accused the AI company (and former Apple Vice President Tang Tan) of extensive coordinated data theft. Tan was at Apple for 24 years and is now Chief Hardware Officer at OpenAI. 

Apple’s lawsuit is defined by claims OpenAI took a range of steps to pry confidential Apple data from existing Apple employees, including using information such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge during interviews. The company says the evidence it has presented so far is only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning OpenAI’s approach.

The lawsuit requests that OpenAI be prevented from using any Apple information during the development of its hardware. Apple is also seeking damages and suing two former employees for breach of contract for violating their employment agreements.

The letters are significant. They represent formal directives that require former Apple staff to preserve documents, messages, emails, and other communications that could be relevant to the case. The demand reflects Apple’s belief that the alleged misuse of confidential information could be more widespread across the competing company. What’s critical is that orders of this kind override any standard data destruction policy and deletion of the requested information becomes a legal offense. 

Why this matters beyond the protagonists

In making its move, Apple shows this is not a dispute about just one or two hires, but an attempt to constrain the movement of intellectual property between the two firms. With AI hardware emerging as the next major battleground in tech, the case could become a defining one; whatever resolution is eventually reached could define the extent to which former employees can carry experience and knowledge between competing firms. The case might also define what the line is between experience and knowledge and the sharing of trade secrets.

This is important, because modern hardware development relies on far more than just finished designs. Product design leans into supplier relationships, manufacturing assumptions, physics, extensive prototyping, and product-roadmap priorities. If courts treat those accumulated insights as protectable secrets, hiring between major technology companies could become far more legally sensitive.

The Jony Ive question

The case comes as Apple prepares to combat OpenAI in hardware. Its competitor is now working with legendary former Apple designer Jony Ive. Ive is not named in the litigation, but Apple will be keen to find out whether confidential product knowledge, design processes, or supply-chain insights have travelled with former staff into OpenAI’s device work.

Ultimately, for Apple, it’s about protecting its many blueprints for whatever hardware the company expects will come after the iPhone.

For its part, OpenAI has refuted Apple’s lawsuit, arguing that it is “not aware of any evidence” that the lawsuit has merit. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The company’s lawyers also claim it did respond to Apple’s initial inquiries on the matter.

What’s at stake

The significance of Apple’s newly-shared communication preservation orders is that if discovery uncovers evidence supporting Apple’s claims, the case could complicate OpenAI’s hardware plans and create unwelcome scrutiny ahead of any future public offering.

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

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis is pushing for the US AI industry to self-regulate, with the support of government, as a starting point for an international creating shared international standards. In a blog post, he called for a focus on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis proposed that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants be encouraged to adopt best practices such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. 

DeepMind was involved in an earlier US government initiative evaluating AI safety, alongside Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article first appeared on CIO.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis on Tuesday reiterated his push for an AI industry self-regulation effort, led by the US government, that is particularly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI) and national security. 

But it is precisely that focus on national security that may make the results of such an effort, assuming it happens, less than palatable outside of the US.

“The rapid progress we’re seeing in AI requires a new approach to testing frontier AI model capabilities that is dynamic, adaptable, and rigorous,” Hassabis wrote. “The US is well positioned, given its economic and technical standing, to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives.”

He noted, however, that the funding would need to be substantial, and would most likely come from industry, to allow the new body to attract world-class technical talent and obtain the necessary compute resources for large-scale testing.

Hassabis said he would propose that the organization “be responsible for developing assessment protocols and working with appropriate federal agencies and the US National Labs to conduct testing in areas relevant to national security,” and that AI vendor participants would be encouraged to adopt best practices, such as publishing model cards with technical details, maintaining strong internal cybersecurity, vetting key personnel, and providing sufficient resourcing for safety and security research.

This is not the first time Hassabis has expressed worries about AGI. He has already worked on a US government initiative evaluating AI safety, which involved DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI (now SpaceXAI) working with the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), a division of the US Department of Commerce. It allowed CAISI to conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to “better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security.”  

The rest of the world may have concerns

Analysts and consultants were mixed about the move, with most expressing concerns about whether an industry-focused group would prioritize the public’s best interests.

“Self-regulation is not viable because it implies everyone is able to regulate themselves and will do so in line with the best interests of the public. Most tech vendors don’t have the capacity to self-regulate. They would just prefer a set of rules within which they can operate,” said Gartner VP analyst Nader Henein. “For-profit organizations are required to do what is best for their shareholders, and external regulation ensures that those organizations are never in a conflict of interest where they have to choose between what is good for their shareholders and what is good for the public.”

And, said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, given the international nature of AI models, an effort coordinated by the US government might alienate other countries. 

“National security is the proposal’s accelerator in Washington and its poison pill abroad: the framing that opens the only gate available at home invites foreign capitals to read the institution as an instrument of American strategy,” he pointed out.

“The map is already plural,” he said. “Brussels switches on enforcement powers over general-purpose models [starting in August 2026], London runs the AI Security Institute, and Beijing licenses on its own terms. California and New York have legislated for frontier models at home. The durable route is shared technical evidence with sovereign enforcement, sealed through mutual recognition rather than deference, with India and the other major non-Western markets holding authorship rather than seats.”

Gogia added that the rules enacted by even such a group may not address all of the key concerns of enterprise IT. A US government effort along the lines that Hassabis is proposing would result in testing that “sits close to intelligence and industrial policy, and those functions will not stay neatly separated. A model can pass every catastrophic-risk test and still fail the enterprise on privacy, reliability, and liability,” he noted.

Walmart’s former director of cybersecurity Steven Eric Fisher, who is now an independent cybersecurity consultant, said he found the proposal “well-intentioned, but it addresses a highly polarized topic at a time when commercial interests carry unprecedented political influence, which is not always applied benevolently.”

He added, “an exclusive US standard that is not globally respected or enforceable would likely fail to achieve its core purpose and would place US companies at a competitive disadvantage.”

Aman Mahapatra, chief strategy officer for Tribeca Softtech, a New York City-based technology consulting firm, said that a deep dive into how FINRA operates today is illustrative of what IT leaders can expect from this effort, assuming the industry adopts that model.

“When the CEOs of the five companies that would be regulated are also the primary drafters of the standards, the standards will reflect those companies’ interests. FINRA has an independent board, but the operational reality is that member firm perspectives dominate the working groups that write the actual rules,” he said. “There is no reason to expect an AI equivalent to work differently, and every reason to expect it to work worse, because AI standardization is happening faster than any industry has ever attempted to standardize itself, and speed is the enemy of independent oversight.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, was even more emphatically opposed to the Hassabis proposal.

“Asking Big Tech companies to self-police is analogous to allowing foxes to guard the henhouse. It hasn’t worked to date, and it won’t work going forward. Expecting these organizations to somehow change their ways at this point in time represents the height of naïve thinking,” Levy said. “The framework proposed by Demis Hassabis is a self-serving roadmap for an industry bent on racing to the AI horizon regardless of the harms caused along the way. It is impossible to quantify the dangers to broader society should frameworks allowing self-regulation become the norm.”

Some love the proposal

An almost completely opposite stance came from Yuri Goryunov, CIO of consulting firm Acceligence, who applauded the proposed move.

“This is one of the rare setups where industry self-regulation has a real shot, and enterprise IT should be enthusiastically rooting for it,” he said. “It fails when harms are externalized, such as in social media content moderation. Or when the overseer outsources judgment to the overseen, such as the FAA’s delegation to Boeing before the 737 MAX. It works when everyone in the industry shares the catastrophic downside.”

He suggested, however, that the best precedent here isn’t FINRA, it’s INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which the nuclear industry created within months of the 1979 Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown “on the logic that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. INPO peer-reviews every US plant, its evaluations move insurance premiums, and it sits on top of the NRC’s statutory floor. That is a public-private stack very close to what Hassabis is describing. Frontier AI has the same structure: one lab’s catastrophic failure brings regulation down on all of them.”

For enterprise CIOs and other IT executives, Goryunov said, that model has the potential for being a big win.

“Today, every enterprise duplicates the same AI diligence of red-teaming, eval suites, governance committees and each does so with less information than any certifying body would have,” Goryunov said. “A credible standards regime does for AI what UL did for electrical equipment and SOC2 did for cloud: it converts an unknowable risk into a procurable product and gives boards a defensible standard of care. That’s not red tape. That’s peace of mind with an audit trail.”

However, Mahapatra said, “the countervailing view is that the alternative to industry-led standards is probably not thoughtful legislation. It is probably no standards, or state-by-state fragmentation, or the current pattern of ex-post enforcement actions where regulators surface concerns years after harm has already occurred.”

Thus, he noted, “Hassabis is making the reasonable argument that imperfect fast standards are better than perfect slow ones, and there is genuine merit to that view for topics like agent identity, evaluation methodology, and interoperability, which are exactly the areas OpenClaw is also targeting.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

Venture-backed firms are buying up the support, finance-ops and managed-services providers enterprises rely on and re-platforming them around AI agents — and the renewal that follows arrives priced per outcome, sold as your advantage. The acquisition-built structure and unproven stability create governance and continuity risks your vendor process isn’t sized for. Here’s how to keep the leverage on your side of the table.

The first time an AI-native services pitch crossed my desk, I nearly signed it. The savings were real, the agents demoed cleanly and the pricing was the kind procurement loves — per resolved case, not per seat. What I almost missed was who got to define the word “resolved.” On an earlier outsourced-support arrangement, back in my public-sector days, the vendor’s reported resolution rate looked excellent right up until we pulled the reopen numbers ourselves. Auto-closed tickets had been counted as wins. Users had quietly stopped logging issues at all. The dashboard was green; the service was not.

That gap — between the number on the contract and what your users actually live with — is the whole game now, and it is about to scale across your portfolio. Gartner’s 2026 CIO and Technology Executive Survey found only 17% of organizations have deployed AI agents, but more than 60% expect to within two years — the steepest adoption curve of any emerging technology it tracks. The providers running your services are moving first, and the contracts are changing faster than most of us can govern them.

The agents underneath these pitches are also nowhere near as reliable in production as they look in the room. Gartner expects more than 40% of agentic AI projects to be canceled by the end of 2027 on cost, unclear value and weak risk controls, and reckons only about 130 of the thousands of self-described agentic vendors are the real thing — the rest are “agent washing” old chatbots and RPA. Treat any headline resolution rate the way you treat a vendor’s own uptime stats: Marketing, until you have seen it run on accounts like yours.

What’s behind the pitch

The challenger’s economics aren’t magic. They come from a reshaping of the services market: Venture-backed firms buying up fragmented, labor-heavy providers — support desks, contact centers, AP and finance ops, slices of managed IT — and re-platforming them around agents. Many of the companies pitching you are not one company at all but several acquired shops stitched onto a shared AI layer. That barely comes up in the sales meeting. It matters enormously once you are the customer.

The direction is independently corroborated, not vendor hype. Everest Group reports outcome-based pricing in business-process services moving from pilots to scaled adoption as AI makes outcomes measurable enough to contract on, with the binding constraint now governance and verified baselines. HFS Research tracks the same “services-to-software” shift across consulting, IT, and operations providers. Here is the part worth holding onto: Most enterprises are early, so you have a little time. But the first vendors to reprice you this way will be the small, single-source ones in the long tail of your portfolio — which, if your stack looks anything like mine, is most of it.

Don’t assume the incumbent is the safe choice

And don’t kid yourself that renewing with the familiar name keeps you clear of this. The big integrators are pulling labor out of their own delivery just as fast — Accenture cut tens of thousands of roles and rehired against an AI-skills filter — and rewriting deals around a share of savings instead of time and materials. Outcome pricing is becoming the default everywhere. There is no version of this where you sit it out.

Two risks your vendor process won’t catch

The first is governance, and the roll-up structure makes it worse than the usual AI-vendor worry. The company you are contracting with isn’t one system. It is several acquired firms with different data practices and security postures, with an AI layer dropped on top at speed. Your customer records, invoices and support transcripts flow into agents whose decisions you often can’t trace, across entities that were never built to one standard. The numbers here aren’t comforting: IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report found 63% of breached organizations had no AI governance policy at all, and 97% of those that suffered an AI-related breach lacked basic AI access controls — AI adoption, IBM concluded, is outpacing both security and governance. When an agent botches a dispute or misroutes regulated data, the regulator and the customer come looking for you, not the platform. And here is the organizational trap: The savings line is what your CFO signs; the provenance question is the one your audit committee won’t ask until after the incident. Nobody raises it for you.

The second is whether the provider will still be standing in three years. These platforms are new, built by acquisition, venture-funded and not one has run through a full contract term or a real downturn. With Gartner expecting more than 40% of agentic AI projects to be canceled by 2027, putting core operations on a young, agent-dependent vendor is a single point of failure dressed up as innovation. Write the exit and data-portability terms before you sign — while you still have leverage to.

Six questions for the renewal

When the challenger shows up — or your incumbent reprices to match — these are the questions I would put on the table. They come down to one thing: Making sure you, not the vendor, own the number.

1. Definition, baseline, guardrails. Make “resolved” mean what your users experience, measured against a baseline you have captured yourself, and tie it to metrics you own — first-contact resolution, reopen rate, time-to-resolution. Expect procurement to resist because pinning this down slows the deal. Hold the line; it is the whole ballgame.
2. Real agent, or agent washing. Gartner reckons only a sliver of self-described agentic vendors are the genuine article. Make them prove it: Production resolution on accounts like yours, and the human-escalation rate sitting behind that number. Not a demo.
3. Auditability, as a gate. SOC 2 at minimum, increasingly ISO 42001 or NIST AI RMF alignment, plus model cards, decision logs and an incident-response plan they have actually tested. If they can’t show how data is walled off between their acquired entities, or how an agent’s decision gets traced, they aren’t ready for anything regulated. This belongs in the shortlist criteria, not the post-mortem.
4. Where autonomy stops. Decide which actions an agent can take alone and which need a human, how it hands off with context and who is accountable when it acts on its own. Put names against it before go-live.
5. The exit. An embedded agent platform gets stickier than the staffed incumbent it replaced, faster than you would think. Lock down data portability, knowledge-base ownership and a way out while you are still the one with leverage.
6. Capacity, not just cost. The best outcome here often isn’t a smaller bill. It is the demand that your old service levels were quietly turning away. Nobody answered the tickets. The cases that aged out. Ask what fixing that is worth before you optimize purely for headcount.

The move

Outcome pricing is where this lands, and on balance, that is progress. But in the near term, it hands the advantage to whoever can measure the outcome — and in most shops, that isn’t the buyer. The edge isn’t picking the cleverest challenger or the safest incumbent. It is being able to hold any of them to a result, on your numbers. Look again at why Gartner thinks so many of these projects die: Not the technology — cost, fuzzy value, weak controls. Our side of the table. So, start there. Take one high-volume, measurable workflow, pilot it against a baseline you own, instrument it with your own metrics, and treat the muscle you build doing that as the real deliverable. Get it right and the pricing model stops mattering. Skip it, and you have just agreed to pay for someone else’s definition of done.

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

Message a business on WhatsApp this week and you may be greeted by software. On June 3, Meta made its Business AI agent available to companies everywhere, a bot that answers questions, recommends products, books appointments, qualifies sales leads and hands you to a human when it gets stuck. It comes bundled in WhatsApp’s premium business tiers, and the largest companies pay for it by the token. After almost two years of testing in markets like India and Mexico, it is now live worldwide.

I build AI agents for a living, and this is a good one. It also sits on top of the largest messaging network ever built. WhatsApp passed three billion monthly users last year. Mark Zuckerberg says people now hold more than a billion threads a day with business accounts across Meta’s apps. Paid messaging on WhatsApp crossed a two-billion-dollar annual run rate in the fourth quarter of 2025, and click-to-WhatsApp ad revenue grew sixty percent year over year. Meta has spent a decade trying to turn all of that talking into buying, and the agent is its most capable attempt yet.

So, picture the moment the agent finishes taking your order. What happens next?

The model Meta keeps pointing at

In Hangzhou or Shenzhen, the answer is that your order shows up, often within the hour. China fused messaging, payments and shopping into single apps more than a decade ago. WeChat carries roughly 1.4 billion users, an in-app store layer with hundreds of millions of monthly shoppers, and a wallet most of the country pays with. Korea built its own version, where KakaoTalk made chat the default way to send a gift. This is the world Meta gestures at when it imagines what WhatsApp could be.

And yet WeChat, the purest “messaging app does commerce” story, is not actually China’s shopping champion, even though it arrived first and is still the bigger app. People do not open a messaging app to browse and shop. The buying went instead to Douyin, the Chinese app run by TikTok’s owner ByteDance, whose endless video feed is engineered to make you want things you were not looking for. WeChat had the users and the wallet, and it still lacked the two things that actually move commerce: A feed that creates demand and a way to deliver the goods. A chat window is neither.

The moat was never the storefront

Amazon learned the same lesson from the other side. Its moat was never the website. It was the warehouses, the trucks and the two-day promise (then one-day, then same-day) that rivals could not match. In 2025 Amazon passed the US Postal Service to become the largest parcel carrier in the country by volume, moving 6.7 billion packages. Roughly 180 million Americans pay for Prime. The storefront is the part everyone sees; the fulfillment network is the part that wins.

Asia’s commerce leaders made the same bet. Coupang built Korea’s Amazon by pouring billions into logistics: Order by midnight, and it arrives before 7 a.m., weekends included. Seven in ten Koreans now live within ten minutes of a Coupang warehouse. Even Alibaba, which grew up as an asset-light marketplace that owned no trucks, eventually concluded it had to build a logistics arm to keep pace.

Speed sells, too. In China, McKinsey found, live shopping converts viewers into buyers at rates approaching 30 percent, roughly ten times an ordinary web page, because the fulfillment behind it delivers the impulse before it cools. The conversation creates the want, but the warehouse turns it into a sale.

Even where messaging rules

Korea shows what a messenger can and cannot win. KakaoTalk is the country’s WhatsApp, and it owns one kind of commerce completely: gifting. Koreans send presents straight from the chat window, close to 200 million of them in 2025, which is nearly all of the country’s mobile gifting. But notice what kind of commerce that is. A gift voucher or a coffee coupon needs no warehouse. The moment a purchase becomes a physical thing that has to arrive fast, the winner is no longer the messenger but Coupang and its dawn-delivery network. KakaoTalk owns the commerce that fits inside a message; Coupang owns the commerce that needs a truck.

Japan makes the same point in the negative. LINE is about as dominant a messenger as exists anywhere, reaching 97 million people, close to 78 percent of the country. If messaging reach alone turned into commerce, LINE would own Japanese retail. Instead, it shut down its own payments service in 2025 and handed the wallet to a rival, while the actual shopping stayed with Rakuten and Amazon Japan. The most-used chat app in the country could not turn that reach into owning what people buy.

Every market tells the same story: A chat app does not win physical commerce. Whoever owns the warehouse does.

What Meta is missing

Which brings us back to the WhatsApp agent, where Meta starts further ahead than WeChat ever did. Through Instagram and Reels it owns the demand-making feed WeChat never had, the agent gives it the sales conversation, and in the West, paying by card is universal. Only the last pillar is missing. Meta has no warehouses, no trucks, no delivery promise of its own and the few times it reached for the pieces around the sale, it pulled back: Its own wallet, Meta Pay, never became something people use, and in 2025 it wound down in-app checkout for Facebook and Instagram Shops, sending buyers back to merchants’ own sites to pay, ship and handle returns. Even Marketplace, its billion-user listings surface, mostly stays out of the transaction itself.

And in the West, that last pillar is already spoken for. The West did fuse commerce, just not around chat. Amazon long ago combined the storefront, the payment, its own branded credit cards and the expensive part, the warehouses and the trucks, into one app that owns the American purchase from search to doorstep. That is the same kind of vertical integration China’s commerce giants built, with players like Alibaba and JD racing into a market where no Amazon yet stood in the way. In the US, that lane was filled years ago.

The other half

None of this makes the agent a mistake. It is already a booming ad business for Meta, and maybe that is all Meta wants it to be: Commerce’s front door, sending the shopper onward and billing the merchant for the introduction.

But goods are only half of commerce, and the other half never needed a warehouse. Remember what KakaoTalk won: Gifting, the one kind of buying that ships nothing. Services are the same, only far bigger. A haircut, a dental cleaning, a training session, a plumber’s visit, a tutor’s hour: None of it sits in a fulfillment center. The transaction is a booking, not a box.

And a booking is exactly what the agent is built to take. Look at the feature Meta put in its own announcement, right beside answering questions and recommending products: It books appointments. For a salon, a clinic or a one-person studio, that is a front desk. Give it the two pieces still missing, a calendar to hold the schedule and a way to take payment inside the chat, and WhatsApp stops being where those businesses message customers and becomes where they run the day.

None of it needs a warehouse, and none of it is Amazon’s to defend. Does that put Meta on a collision course with Square and Mindbody?

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

Cloud computing continues to be the platform of choice for large applications and a driver of innovation in enterprise technology. Gartner forecasts public cloud spending alone to the public cloud services market alone will reach $1.42 trillion in current U.S. dollars, driven by AI workloads and enterprise modernization.

Driving this growth are the rise of AI and machine learning on the cloud, adoption of edge computing, the maturation of serverless computing, the emergence of multicloud strategies, improved security and privacy, and more sustainable cloud practices.

What is cloud computing?

While often used broadly, the term cloud computing is defined as an abstraction of compute, storage, and network infrastructure assembled as a platform on which applications and systems are deployed quickly and scaled on the fly.

Most cloud customers consume public cloud computing services over the internet, which are hosted in large, remote data centers maintained by cloud providers. The most common type of cloud computing, SaaS (software as service), delivers prebuilt applications to the browsers of customers who pay per seat or by usage, exemplified by such popular apps as Salesforce, Google Docs, or Microsoft Teams.

5 top trends in cloud computing

1. Agentic cloud ecosystems: The shift from AI as a tool to AI as an autonomous operator within cloud environments.
2. Sovereign and localized clouds: Meeting strict national data residency and digital sovereignty laws.
3. Specialized AI hardware access: Navigating the GPU capacity crunch through reserved instances and boutique AI clouds.
4. Integrated greenOps: Merging cost optimization with mandatory carbon-footprint reporting.
5. Industry-specific walled gardens: The maturation of vertical clouds into highly regulated, precompliant environments for finance and healthcare.

Next in line is IaaS (infrastructure as a service), which offers vast, virtualized compute, storage, and network infrastructure upon which customers build their own applications, often with the aid of providers’ API-accessible services.

When people refer to the “the cloud” today, they most often mean the big IaaS providers: AWS (Amazon Web Services), Google Cloud Platform, or Microsoft Azure. All three have become ecosystems of services that go way beyond infrastructure and include developer tools, serverless computing, machine learning services and APIs, data warehouses, and thousands of other services. With both SaaS and IaaS, a key benefit is agility. Customers gain new capabilities almost instantly without the capital investment in hardware or software on-premises — and they can instantly scale the cloud resources they consume up or down as needed.

According to Foundry’s Cloud Computing Study, 2025, enterprises are moving to the cloud to improve security and/or governance, increase scalability​, accelerate adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning and other new technologies, replace on-premises legacy technology, ​improve employee productivity, and ensure disaster recovery and business continuity.

Hyperscalers now dominate cloud services

The largest cloud service providers are often described as hyperscalers, due to their capability to provide large-scale data centers across the globe. Hyperscalers typically offer a wide range of cloud services, including IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and more.

As mentioned above, notable hyperscalers include Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure. They offer the following capabilities.

• Scalability: Hyperscalers can handle massive workloads and scale resources up or down quickly.
• Cost-effectiveness: Hyperscalers often offer competitive pricing and economies of scale.
• Global reach: Hyperscalers operate data centers around the world, providing low-latency access to customers in different regions.
• Innovation: Hyperscalers are at the forefront of cloud innovation, offering new services and features.

Challenges of working with hyperscalers

• Vendor lock-in: Relying heavily on a single hyperscaler can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult to switch to another provider and charging large egress fees if you do move.
• Complexity: Hyperscalers offer a vast array of services, which can be overwhelming for some customers.
• Security concerns: Because hyperscalers handle sensitive data, security is a major concern.

AI, Agents, and the Sovereign Cloud

The AI-enabled enterprise has moved beyond simple chatbots. The focus has shifted to agentic workflows — autonomous systems that reside in the cloud and possess the authority to execute business processes, manage cloud spend, and self-patch security vulnerabilities without human intervention.

The shift to agentic infrastructure

Cloud providers are no longer just selling compute. They are selling inference-as-a-service. Modern cloud budgets are now dominated by the high cost of specialized GPU clusters (such as Nvidia’s Blackwell architecture). This has led to the rise of boutique AI clouds that compete with hyperscalers by offering bare-metal access to the latest silicon specifically for model training and fine-tuning.

Data sovereignty and private AI

A major shift in late 2025 is the move away from public AI models for sensitive data. Organizations are increasingly using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) within walled garden environments. This ensures that a company’s proprietary data never leaves their specific cloud instance to train a provider’s base model.

Furthermore, sovereign AI has become a requirement for global operations. Governments now demand that the AI models processing their citizens’ data be hosted on infrastructure that is owned, operated, and governed within their own borders.

The challenges of ghost AI

Just as shadow IT plagued the 2010s, ghost AI—unauthorized AI agents running on corporate cloud accounts — has become a primary security risk. Managing these autonomous entities requires a new layer of AI governance, where the cloud provider automatically audits the intent and permissions of every running agent to prevent runaway costs or data leaks.

Cloud computing definitions

In 2011, NIST posted a PDF that divided cloud computing into three “service models” — SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS (platform as a service) — the latter being a controlled environment within which customers develop and run applications. These three categories have largely stood the test of time, although most PaaS solutions now are made available as services within IaaS ecosystems rather than as dedicated PaaS clouds.

Two evolutionary trends stand out since NIST’s threefold definition. One is the long and growing list of subcategories within SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS, some of which blur the lines between categories. The other is the explosion of API-accessible services available in the cloud, particularly within IaaS ecosystems. The cloud has become a crucible of innovation where many emerging technologies appear first as services, a big attraction for business customers who understand the potential competitive advantages of early adoption.

SaaS (software as a service) definition

This type of cloud computing delivers applications over the internet, typically with a browser-based user interface. Today, most software companies offer their wares via SaaS — if not exclusively, then at least as an option.

The most popular SaaS applications for business are Google’s G Suite and Microsoft’s Office 365. Most enterprise applications, including giant ERP suites from Oracle and SAP, come in both SaaS and on-premises versions. SaaS applications typically offer extensive configuration options as well as development environments that enable customers to code their own modifications and additions. They also enable data integration with on-prem applications.

IaaS (infrastructure as a service) definition

At a basic level, IaaS cloud providers offer virtualized compute, storage, and networking over the internet on a pay-per-use basis. Think of it as a data center maintained by someone else, remotely, but with a software layer that virtualizes all those resources and automates customers’ ability to allocate them with little trouble.

But that’s just the basics. The full array of services offered by the major public IaaS providers is staggering: highly scalable databases, virtual private networks, big data analytics, AI and machine learning services, application platforms, developer tools, devops tools, and so on. Amazon Web Services was the first IaaS provider and remains the leader, followed by Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, IBM Cloud, and Oracle Cloud.

PaaS (platform as a service) definition

PaaS provides sets of services and workflows that specifically target developers, who can use shared tools, processes, and APIs to accelerate the development, testing, and deployment of applications. Salesforce’s Heroku and Salesforce Platform (formerly Force.com) are popular public cloud PaaS offerings; Cloud Foundry and Red Hat’s OpenShift can be deployed on premises or accessed through the major public clouds. For enterprises, PaaS can ensure that developers have ready access to resources, follow certain processes, and use only a specific array of services, while operators maintain the underlying infrastructure.

FaaS (function as a service) definition

FaaS, the original and most basic version of serverless computing, adds another layer of abstraction to PaaS, so that developers are insulated from everything in the stack below their code. Instead of futzing with virtual servers, containers, and application runtimes, developers upload narrowly functional blocks of code, and set them to be triggered by a certain event (such as a form submission or uploaded file). All of the major clouds offer FaaS on top of IaaS: AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, Google Cloud Functions, and IBM Cloud Functions. A special benefit of FaaS applications is that they consume no IaaS resources until an event occurs, reducing pay-per-use fees.

Private cloud definition

A private cloud downsizes the technologies used to run IaaS public clouds into software that can be deployed and operated in a customer’s data center. As with a public cloud, internal customers can provision their own virtual resources to build, test, and run applications, with metering to charge back departments for resource consumption. For administrators, the private cloud amounts to the ultimate in data center automation, minimizing manual provisioning and management.

VMware remains a force in the private cloud software market, but the acquisition by Broadcom has created confusion and raised concerns among some customers about potential changes in pricing, licensing, and support. This could lead some organizations to explore alternative solutions.

OpenStack continues to be a popular open-source choice for building private clouds. It offers a flexible and customizable platform that can be tailored to specific needs. However, OpenStack can be complex to deploy and manage, and it may require significant expertise to maintain.

Kubernetes, a container orchestration platform that has gained significant traction in recent years, is often used in conjunction with other technologies like OpenStack to build cloud-native applications. Red Hat OpenShift is a comprehensive cloud platform based on Kubernetes that provides a managed experience for deploying and managing container-based, applications.

Many cloud providers offer their own cloud-native platforms and tools, such as AWS Outposts, Azure Stack, and Google Cloud Anthos.

Common factors to consider when evaluating private cloud platforms include the following:

1. Pricing: The initial cost of deployment and ongoing maintenance costs.
2. Complexity: The level of technical expertise needed to manage the platform.
3. Flexibility: The ability to customize the platform to meet specific needs.
4. Vendor lock-in: The degree to which the organization is tied to a particular vendor.
5. Security: The security features and capabilities of the platform.
6. Scalability: The capability to expand the platform to meet future needs.

Hybrid cloud definition

A hybrid cloud is the integration of a private cloud with a public cloud. At its most developed, the hybrid cloud involves creating parallel environments in which applications can move easily between private and public clouds. In other instances, databases may stay in the customer data center and integrate with public cloud applications — or virtualized data center workloads may be replicated to the cloud during times of peak demand. The types of integrations between private and public clouds vary widely, but they must be extensive to earn a hybrid cloud designation.

Public APIs (application programming interfaces) definition

Just as SaaS delivers applications to users over the internet, public APIs offer developers application functionality that can be accessed programmatically. For example, in building web applications, developers often tap into the Google Maps API to provide driving directions; to integrate with social media, developers may call upon APIs maintained by Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn. Twilio has built a successful business delivering telephony and messaging services via public APIs. Ultimately, any business can provision its own public APIs to enable customers to consume data or access application functionality.

iPaaS (integration platform as a service) definition

Data integration is a key issue for any sizeable company, but particularly for those that adopt SaaS at scale. iPaaS providers typically offer prebuilt connectors for sharing data among popular SaaS applications and on-premises enterprise applications, though providers may focus more or less on business-to-business and e-commerce integrations, cloud integrations, or traditional SOA-style integrations. iPaaS offerings in the cloud from such providers as Dell Boomi, Informatica, MuleSoft, and SnapLogic also let users implement data mapping, transformations, and workflows as part of the integration-building process.

IDaaS (identity as a service) definition

The most difficult security issue related to cloud computing is managing user identity and its associated rights and permissions across data centers and pubic cloud sites. IDaaS providers maintain cloud-based user profiles that authenticate users and enable access to resources or applications based on security policies, user groups, and individual privileges. The ability to integrate with various directory services (Active Directory, LDAP, etc.) and provide single sign-on across business-oriented SaaS applications is essential.

Leaders in IDaaS include Microsoft, IBM, Google, Oracle, Okta, Capgemini, Okta, Junio Corporation, OneLogin, and JumpCloud.  

Collaboration platforms

Collaboration solutions such as Slack and Microsoft Teams have become vital messaging platforms that enable groups to communicate and work together effectively. Basically, these solutions are relatively simple SaaS applications that support chat-style messaging along with file sharing and audio or video communication. Most offer APIs to facilitate integrations with other systems and enable third-party developers to create and share add-ins that augment functionality.

Vertical clouds

Key providers in such industries as financial services, healthcare, retail, life sciences, and manufacturing provide PaaS clouds to enable customers to build vertical applications that tap into industry-specific, API-accessible services. Vertical clouds can dramatically reduce the time to market for vertical applications and accelerate domain-specific B2B integrations. Most vertical clouds are built with the intent of nurturing partner ecosystems.

Other cloud computing considerations

The most widely accepted definition of cloud computing means that you run your workloads on someone else’s servers, but this is not the same as outsourcing. Virtual cloud resources and even SaaS applications must be configured and maintained by the customer. Consider these factors when planning a cloud initiative.

Cloud computing security considerations

Objections to the public cloud generally begin with cloud security, although the major public clouds have proven themselves much less susceptible to attack than the average enterprise data center.

Of greater concern is the integration of security policy and identity management between customers and public cloud providers. In addition, government regulation may forbid customers from allowing sensitive data off-premises. Other concerns include the risk of outages and the long-term operational costs of public cloud services.

Multicloud management considerations

To enhance their operational efficiency, reduce costs, and improve security, many companies are increasingly turning to multicloud strategies. By distributing workloads across multiple cloud providers, organizations can avoid vendor lock-in, optimize costs, and leverage the best-of-breed services offered by different providers.

This multicloud approach also improves performance and reliability by minimizing downtime and optimizing latency. Additionally, multicloud strategies strengthen security by diversifying the attack surface and facilitating compliance with industry regulations. Finally, by replicating critical workloads across multiple regions and providers, companies can establish robust disaster recovery and business continuity plans, ensuring minimal disruption in the event of catastrophic failures.

The bar to qualify as a multicloud adopter is low: A customer just needs to use more than one public cloud service. However, depending on the number and variety of cloud services involved, managing multiple clouds can become complex from both a cost optimization and a technology perspective.

In some cases, customers subscribe to multiple cloud services simply to avoid dependence on a single provider. A more sophisticated approach is to select public clouds based on the unique services they offer and, in some cases, integrate them. For example, developers might want to use Google’s Vertex AI Studio on Google Cloud Platform to build AI-driven applications, but prefer Jenkins hosted on the CloudBees platform for continuous integration.

To control costs and reduce management overhead, some customers opt for cloud management platforms (CMPs) and/or cloud service brokers (CSBs), which let you manage multiple clouds as if they were one cloud. The problem is that these solutions tend to limit customers to such common-denominator services as storage and compute, ignoring the panoply of services that make each cloud unique.

Edge computing considerations

You often see edge computing incorrectly described as an alternative to cloud computing. Edge computing is about moving compute to local devices in a highly distributed system, typically as a layer around a cloud computing core. There is typically a cloud involved to orchestrate all of the devices and take in their data, then analyze it or otherwise act on it. 

To the cloud and back – why repatriation is real

While public cloud offers scalability and flexibility, some enterprises are opting to return to on-premises infrastructure due to rising costs, data security concerns, performance issues, vendor lock-in, and regulatory compliance challenges. While the public cloud offers scalability and flexibility, on-premises infrastructure provides greater control, customization, and potential cost savings in certain scenarios leading some technology decision-makers to consider repatriation. However, a hybrid cloud approach, combining public and private cloud, often offers the best balance of benefits.

More specific reasons to repatriate including the following:

• Unanticipated costs, such as data transfer fees, storage charges, and egress fees, can quickly escalate, especially for large-scale cloud deployments.  
• Inaccurate resource provisioning or underutilization can lead to higher-than-expected costs.
• Stricter data privacy regulations require organizations to store and process data within specific geographic boundaries.  
• For highly sensitive data, companies may prefer to maintain greater control over security measures and access permissions. 
• On-premises infrastructure can offer lower latency, particularly for applications requiring real-time processing or high-performance computing.  
• Overreliance on a single cloud provider can limit flexibility and increase costs. Repatriation allows organizations to diversify their infrastructure and reduce vendor dependency.  
• Industries with stringent compliance requirements may find it easier to meet standards with on-premises infrastructure.  
• On-premises environments offer greater control over hardware, software, and network configurations, allowing for customized solutions.  

Benefits of cloud computing

The cloud’s main appeal is to reduce the time to market of applications that need to scale dynamically. Increasingly, however, developers are drawn to the cloud by the abundance of advanced new services that can be incorporated into applications, from machine learning to internet of things (IoT) connectivity.

Although businesses sometimes migrate legacy applications to the cloud to reduce data center resource requirements, the real benefits accrue to new applications that take advantage of cloud services and “cloud native” attributes. The latter include microservices architecture, Linux containers to enhance application portability, and container management solutions such as Kubernetes that orchestrate container-based services. Cloud-native approaches and solutions can be part of either public or private clouds and help enable highly efficient devops workflows.

Cloud computing, be it public or private or hybrid or multicloud, has become the platform of choice for large applications, particularly customer-facing ones that need to change frequently or scale dynamically. More significantly, the major public clouds now lead the way in enterprise technology development, debuting new advances before they appear anywhere else. Workload by workload, enterprises are opting for the cloud, where an endless parade of exciting new technologies invite innovative use.

SaaS has its roots in the ASP (application service provider) trend of the early 2000s, when providers would run applications for business customers in the provider’s data center, with dedicated instances for each customer. The ASP model was a spectacular failure because it quickly became impossible for providers to maintain so many separate instances, particularly as customers demanded customizations and updates.

Salesforce is widely considered the first company to launch a highly successful SaaS application using multitenancy — a defining characteristic of the SaaS model. Rather than each Salesforce customer getting its own application instance, customers who subscribe to the company’s salesforce automation software share a single, large, dynamically scaled instance of an application (like tenants sharing an apartment building), while storing their data in separate, secure repositories on the SaaS provider’s servers. Fixes can be rolled out behind the scenes with zero downtime and customers can receive UX or functionality improvements as they become available.

Angular is a cohesive, all-in-one reactive framework for web development. It is one of the larger reactive frameworks, focused on being a single architectural system that handles all your web development needs under one idiom. While Angular was long criticized for being heavyweight as compared to React, many of those issues were addressed in Angular 19. Modern Angular is built around the Signals API and minimal formality, while still delivering a one-stop-shop that includes dependency injection and integrated routing.

Angular is popular with the enterprise because of its stable, curated nature, but it is becoming more attractive to the wider developer community thanks to its more community engaged development philosophy. That, along with its recent technical evolution, make Angular one of the most interesting projects to watch right now.

Why choose Angular?

Choosing a JavaScript development framework sometimes feels like a philosophical debate, but it should be a practical decision. Angular is unique because it is strongly opinionated. It doesn’t just give you a view layer; it provides a complete toolkit for building web applications.

Like other reactive frameworks, Angular is built around its reactive engine, which lets you bind state (variables) to the view. But if that’s all you needed, one of the smaller, more focused frameworks would be more than enough. What Angular has that some of these other frameworks don’t is its ability to use data binding to automatically synchronize data from your user interface (UI) with your JavaScript objects. Angular also leverages dependency injection and inversion of control to help structure your application and make it easier to test. And it contains more advanced features like server-side rendering (SSR) and static-site generation (SSG) within itself, rather than requiring you to engage a meta-framework for either style of development.

While Angular might not be your top choice for every occasion, it’s an excellent option for larger projects that require features you won’t get with a more lightweight framework.

Also see: Catching up with Angular 19.

Getting started with Angular

With those concepts in mind, let’s set up Angular in your development environment. After that, we can run through developing a web application with Angular. To start, make sure you have Node and NPM installed. From the command line, enter:

$ node -v
$ npm -v

Next, you can use the Angular CLI to launch a new app:

$ ng new iw-ng

You can use the defaults in your responses to the interactive prompts shown here:

Matthew Tyson

We now have a basic project layout in the new directory, which you can import into an IDE (such as VS Code) or edit directly.

Looking at the project layout, you might notice it is fairly lean, a break from Angular projects of the past. The most important parts are:

• src/main.ts: This is the main entry point. In older versions of Angular, this file had to bootstrap a module, which then bootstrapped a component. Now, it avoids any verbose syntax, calling bootstrapApplication with your root component directly.
• src/index.html: The main HTML page that hosts your application. This is the standard index.html that serves all root requests in a web page and contains the tag where your Angular component will render. It is the “body” that the “spirit” of your code animates.
• src/app/app.ts: The root component of your application. This single file defines the view logic and the component metadata. In the new “standalone” world, it manages its own imports, meaning you can see exactly what dependencies it uses right at the top of the file. (This is the root element that appears in src/index.html.)
• src/app/app.config.ts: This file is new in modern Angular and replaces the old AppModule providers array. It is where you configure global services, like the router or HTTP client.
• angular.json: The configuration file for the CLI itself. It tells the build tools how to process your code, though you will rarely need to touch this file manually anymore.

Here is the basic flow of how the engine renders these components:

1. The arrival (HTML): The browser receives index.html. The tag is there, but it’s empty.
2. The unpacking (JavaScript): The browser sees the tags at the bottom of the HTML and downloads the JavaScript bundles (your compiled code) from src/app/app.ts.
3. The assembly (Bootstrap): The browser runs that JavaScript. The code “wakes up,” finds the tag in the DOM, and dynamically inserts your title, buttons, and lists.

This flow will be different if you are using server-side rendering (SSR), but we’ll leave that option aside for now. Now that you’ve seen the basic architecture, let’s get into the code.

Developing your first web app in Angular

If you open src/app/app.ts (more info here) the component definition looks like this:

import { Component, signal } from '@angular/core';
import { RouterOutlet } from '@angular/router';

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  imports: [RouterOutlet],
  templateUrl: './app.html',
  styleUrl: './app.css'
})
export class App {
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
}

Before we dissect the code, let’s run the app and see what it produces:

$ ng serve

You should see a page like this one at localhost:4200:

Matthew Tyson

Returning to the src/app.ts component, notice that there are three main parts of the definition: the class, the metadata, and the view. Let’s unpack these separately.

The class (export class App)

Export class App is vanilla TypeScript that holds your component’s data and logic. In our example, title = signal(‘iw-ng’) defines a piece of reactive state. Unlike older versions of Angular where data was just a plain property, here we use a signal. Signals are wrappers around values that notify the template precisely when they change, enabling fine-grained performance.

The metadata (@Component)

The @Component decorator tells Angular it is dealing with a component, not just a generic class. There are several elements involved in the decorator’s communication with the engine:

• selector: 'app-root': Defines the custom HTML tag associated with any given component. Angular finds in your index.html and renders the component there.
• imports: In the new Angular era, dependencies are explicit. You list exactly what a component needs (like RouterOutlet or other components) here, rather than hiding them in a separate module file.
• templateUrl: Points to the external HTML file that defines the view.

The view (the template)

This is the visual part of the component, defined in app.html. It combines standard HTML with Angular’s template syntax. (JSX handles this part for React-based apps.)

We can modify src/app/app.html to see how these three elements work together. To start, delete the default content and add the following:

Hello, {{ title() }}

The double curly braces {{ }} are called interpolation. Notice the parentheses in title(). We are reading the “title” signal value by calling its function. If you were to update that signal programmatically (e.g., this.title.set('New Value')), the text on the screen would update instantly.

Angular’s built-in control flow

Old-school Angular required “structural directives” like *ngIf and *ngFor logic control. These were powerful but required importing CommonModule and learning a specific micro-syntax. Modern Angular uses a built-in control flow that looks like standard JavaScript (similar to other Reactive platforms).

To see the new control flow in action, let’s add a list to our component. Update src/app/app.ts as follows, leaving the rest of the file the same:

export class App {
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
  protected readonly frameworks = signal(['Angular', 'React', 'Vue', 'Svelte']);
  protected showList = signal(true);

  toggleList() {
    this.showList.update(v => !v);
  }
}

While we’re at it, let’s also update src/app/app.html to render this new list (don’t worry about for now; it just tells Angular where to render the framing template):

Toggle List

@if (showList()) {
  

    @for (tech of frameworks(); track tech) {
      
{{ tech }}
    }
  
} @else {
  
List is hidden
}

The app will now display a list that can be toggled for visibility:

Matthew Tyson

This syntax is cleaner and easier to read than the old *ngFor loops:

• @if conditionally renders the block if the signal’s value is true.
• @for iterates over the array. The track keyword is required for performance (it tells Angular how to identify unique items in the list).
• (click) is an event binding. It lets us run code (the toggleList method) when the user interacts with the button.

Services: Managing business logic in Angular

Components focus on the view (i.e., what you see). For the business logic that backs the application functionality, we use services.

A service is just a class that can be “injected” into a component that needs it. This is Angular’s famous dependency injection system. It allows you to write logic once and reuse it anywhere. It’s a slightly different way of thinking about how an application is wired together, but it gives you real organizational benefits over time.

To generate a service, you can use the CLI:

$ ng generate service frameworks

This command creates a src/app/hero.ts file. In modern Angular, we define services using the @Injectable decorator. Currently, the src/app/hero.ts file just has this:

import { Injectable } from '@angular/core';

@Injectable({
  providedIn: 'root',
})
export class Frameworks {
  
}

Open the file and add a simple method to return our data:

import { Injectable } from '@angular/core';

@Injectable({
  providedIn: 'root', // Available everywhere in the app
})
export class Frameworks {
  getList() {
    return ['Angular', 'React', 'Vue', 'Svelte'];
  }
}

The providedIn: 'root' metadata is important, it tells Angular to create a single, shared instance of this service for the entire application (you might recognize this as an instance of the singleton pattern).

Using the service

In the past, we had to list dependencies in the constructor. Modern Angular offers a cleaner way: the inject() function. Subsequently, we can refactor our src/app/app.ts to get its data from the service instead of hardcoding it:

import { Component, inject, signal } from '@angular/core';
import { RouterOutlet } from '@angular/router';
import { Frameworks } from './frameworks'; // Import the service

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  imports: [RouterOutlet],
  templateUrl: './app.html',
  styleUrl: './app.css'
})
export class App {
  private frameworksService = inject(Frameworks); // Dependency Injection
  
  protected readonly title = signal('iw-ng');
  
  // Initialize signal with data directly from the service
  protected readonly frameworks = signal(this.frameworksService.getList());
  protected showList = signal(true);

  toggleList() {
    this.showList.update(v => !v);
  }
}

Dependency injection is a powerful pattern. The component doesn’t need to know where the list came from (it could be coming from an API, a database, or a hard-coded array); it just asks the service for what it needs. This pattern adds a bit of extra work up front, but it delivers a more flexible, organized codebase as the app grows in size and complexity.

Routers and routes

Once your application grows beyond a single view, you need a way to navigate between different screens. In Angular, we use the built-in router for this purpose. In our example project, src/app/app.routes.ts is the dedicated home for the router config. Let’s follow the steps for creating a new route.

First, we define the route. When you open src/app/app.routes.ts, you will see an exported routes array. This array contains the available routes for your app. Each string name resolves to a component that handles rendering that route. In effect, this is the map of your application’s landscape.

In a real application, you’d often have “framing template” material in the root of the app (like the navbar) and then the routes fill in the body content. (Remember that by default, Angular is designed for single-page apps, where navigation does reload the screen, but swaps content.)

For now, let’s just get a sense of how the router works. First, create a new component so we have a destination to travel to. In your terminal, run:

$ ng generate component details

This will generate a simple details component in the src/app/details directory.

Now we can update src/app/app.routes.ts to include this new path. We will also add a “default” path that redirects empty requests to the home view, ensuring the user always lands somewhere:

import { Routes } from '@angular/router';
import { App } from './app'; // Matches src/app/app.ts
import { Details } from './details/details'; // Matches src/app/details/details.ts

export const routes: Routes = [
  { path: '', redirectTo: '/home', pathMatch: 'full' },
  { path: 'home', component: App },
  { path: 'details', component: Details },
];

Now if you visit localhost:4200/home, you’ll get the message from the details component: “Details works!”

Next, we’ll use the routerLink directive to move between views without refreshing the page. In src/app/app.html, we create a navigation bar that sits permanently at the top of the page (the “stationary” element), while the router swaps the content below it (the “impermanent” element):

And with that, the application has a navigation flow. The user clicks, the URL updates, and the content transforms, all without the jarring flicker of a browser reload.

Parametrized routes

The last thing we’ll look at is handling route parameters, where the route accepts variables in the path. To manage this kind of dynamic data, you define a route with a variable, marked by a colon. Open src/app/app.routes.ts and add a dynamic path:

export const routes: Routes = [
  // ... existing routes
  { path: 'details/:id', component: Details }, 
];

The :id is a placeholder. Whether the URL is /details/42 or /details/108, this router will receive it because it matches the path. Inside the details component, we have access to this parameter (using the ActivatedRoute service or the new withComponentInputBinding). We can use that value to retrieve the data we need (like using it to recover a detail item from a database).

Conclusion

We have seen the core elements of modern Angular: Setting up the environment, building reactive components with signals, organizing logic with services, and tying it all together with interactive routing.

Deploying these pieces together is the basic work in Angular. Once you get comfortable with it, you have an extremely powerful platform at your fingertips. And, when you are ready to go deeper, there is a whole lot more to explore in Angular, including:

• State management: Beyond signals, Angular has support for managing complex, application-wide state.
• Forms: Angular has a robust system for handling user input.
• Signals: We only scratched the surface of signals here. Signals offer a powerful, fine-grained way to manage state changes.
• Build: You can learn more about producing production builds.
• RxJS: Takes reactive programming to the next level.

A product manager on my team recently asked me where we were seeing the most issues across the engineering team. Instead of guessing, I had an engineering lead point Claude at our Jira via an MCP connector and look at the bug patterns himself.

One team had a wildly disproportionate share of tickets — about 50% of their sprint time was spent on “bugs,” versus roughly 25% for everyone else. The headline number suggested a quality problem.

It wasn’t. When we layered in the context around those tickets, almost none of them were bugs. They were manual workarounds for a missing product capability: customers asking us, one request at a time, to restore items they had accidentally deleted. Not shipping an item restore feature was burning roughly 1.5 engineers’ worth of capacity. I went back to our product team and said, “Build this, and you reclaim a person and a half.”

The analysis took 45 minutes. It was only possible because our data was already organized, tagged by team, connected to contributors, accessible through MCP and protected by role-based access. None of that is “AI.” All of it is the layer underneath AI that almost nobody invests in first. That’s probably because the investment is unglamorous: updating data dictionaries, access controls, team taxonomies, system-to-system mappings. Most of the work has been the same for twenty years. AI just raised the cost of skipping it.

The intelligence underneath the models

I keep coming back to the value of context data layers as a CTO in the middle of an AI rollout. I have started calling that value proposition contextual intelligence because I haven’t found a better name. Anthropic’s engineering team has been calling this kind of work “context engineering” since late 2025, and CIO ran its own feature on the term shortly after. Whether you describe it as contextual intelligence or context engineering, it’s the part of the stack where the actual programming work still lives.

If business logic is your company’s official org chart, then contextual intelligence is knowing who actually gets things done, how decisions are actually made and what the unwritten rules are. One is theory. The other is reality.

Most enterprise systems capture the theory. The systems that capture how work actually happens — what people do, how teams operate, where decisions get stuck — are rarer and harder to build. And modern LLMs, it turns out, are useless without both.

I learned this the hard way at a recent company hackathon. Nine engineering teams, one prompt: make our operational dataset more usable through AI. My team built persona-based chatbots (CFO, CIO, sales manager) on top of an MCP server backed by Postgres and our enrichment data. Other teams built dashboard generators, Looker conversational analytics and workflow agents.

The initial demos all had the same problem. Claude could talk to our data, but the answers were either generic or confidently wrong. The CFO persona would happily report a “spend trend” that quietly conflated two distinct cost categories across two different tables. The CIO persona would answer questions about team productivity, but the averages across roles should never have been aggregated. The sales manager persona returned answers that were technically correct against the schema and completely wrong against the business. The raw data was rich. The context layer around it didn’t exist yet. Chatting with raw data is not an AI product. It’s a demo.

One of my senior engineers spent the second day ripping out the agent’s direct database connection. He stopped trying to prompt-engineer the LLM to understand our business and instead codified that logic into the data pipeline. Working backward from the failed CFO answers, he mapped out the implicit knowledge an experienced controller relies on: Explicitly defining which legacy tables actually represent ‘spend,’ writing the rules for currency normalization and hardcoding our fiscal time windows. He built a series of semantic SQL views to enforce these rules and restricted the MCP server to exposing only this curated layer. When we pointed the same model at those same questions, it returned completely different answers. They were specific, evidence-based and grounded in our actual business reality. The model didn’t get smarter. The engineering beneath it did.

The same pattern shows up everywhere I look right now

McKinsey keeps publishing that software development tops enterprise AI use cases, with companies reporting 30–50% productivity gains in pilots. The pilot numbers are real. They rarely translate to top- or bottom-line impact in production. Our own company data tells the same story: Between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026, our total AI tool usage grew by 328% (over 4x). Over that same period, PR throughput grew by just 49%.

That gap — adoption way up, outcomes inching along — is the context gap. Plug a generic agent into raw, uninterpreted data, and it will act inefficiently at best, harmfully at worst. An agent optimizing sales without your customer segmentation or product hierarchy will confidently recommend the wrong thing. Anthropic framed the shift directly: building with language models is becoming “less about finding the right words and phrases for your prompts, and more about answering the broader question of what context configuration is most likely to generate our model’s desired behavior.” That second question — what context configuration  — is the entire game. Most organizations are still answering the first one.

Where the work actually lives

A growing number of CTOs I talk to are shifting their AI investments accordingly. Less attention on the model. More on the layer between the model and the data.

When peers ask me what that actually looks like day-to-day, I tell them I give every engineering role the same mandate: the LLM should never see raw, uncontextualized data.

In practice, that breaks down to three pieces of work, none of them glamorous.

The first is semantic middleware. We need code that transforms raw data into business-meaningful signals before it ever reaches the model. Our feature stores hold things like “employee code velocity on critical-path features,” not “X logged 50 Git commits.” The work of figuring out what “critical-path” means in our product, in our org, on this team is the work. It does not get cheaper because the model has gotten better.

The second is multi-agent design. Instead of one omniscient orchestrator, we run smaller agents scoped to specific domains, each with rules that catch the failure modes the main model is known for. We pair them with RAG that retrieves precomputed insights, with their rules attached, rather than raw documents. Validation checkpoints sit between steps and flag suggestions that violate known constraints, such as averaging productivity across completely different job functions. The guardrails are not there to be clever. They are there because we already watched the model make those exact mistakes.

The third is evaluation that takes business logic seriously. When I look at a model, general benchmark accuracy is the least interesting number. I want to know whether it respects our constraints and integrates cleanly with our existing architecture. That sometimes means fine-tuning our patterns, sometimes constitutional approaches to embed principles, sometimes hybrid systems where deterministic rules sit alongside the probabilistic ones. The throughline is the same: validate against reality, not against the benchmark.

Why this matters now

The reason this matters more now than it did six months ago is that adoption is moving faster than measurement, let alone integration. Model Evaluation & Threat Research’s (METR) developer productivity work tells the story in a way they didn’t intend. In early 2025, they ran a controlled study and found AI tools slowed experienced open-source developers by 19%. When they tried to repeat the study in late 2025, the experiment broke. Thirty to fifty percent of developers refused to submit tasks under the no-AI condition. They wouldn’t accept working without their tools. METR is now redesigning the study because the original methodology no longer holds up against how developers actually work. That’s how fast adoption moved. But I’d be willing to bet the organizational scaffolding required to convert that adoption into outcomes — context layers, workflow redesign, retraining around new tools — moved nowhere near as fast.

Get ahead with context

The teams I’ve seen succeed with AI built the context layer first. The teams I’ve seen struggle eventually built in context anyway, just at higher cost and with more scar tissue. Raw data is the new currency. But raw data without a context layer is cash sitting in a vault. It cannot act on anything. The difference between insight and noise is a layer of code that understands what your data means.

That layer is the work. It is where the next decade of competitive advantage will sit. And in my experience, the organizations that build it first are the ones that will actually get the productivity gains the rest of the market keeps promising.

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

Voice AI. Conversational AI. You’ve seen both terms everywhere—sometimes in the same sentence, sometimes used as if they mean the same thing.

They don’t. But they’re not opposites either.

One is a category of technology. The other is a specific way to deliver it.

Mix them up and you end up making the wrong platform decisions, building the wrong workflows, and losing 45 minutes in a meeting that didn’t need to happen.

Here’s the difference between voice AI and conversational AI, minus the jargon.

Conversational AI: The intelligence layer

Conversational AI is the broader category. It refers to any AI system designed to understand human language, reason about what was said, and respond in a way that feels natural and contextually relevant. That exchange can happen through text, voice, or any other medium.

What defines conversational AI is the intelligence underneath the interaction:

• Natural language understanding that interprets intent rather than matching keywords
• Dialogue management that tracks what’s been said and what still needs to be resolved
• Response generation that produces output appropriate to the context.

Conversational AI shows up in a lot of forms. A chatbot on a support page is conversational AI. An AI assistant that helps a sales rep draft follow-up emails is conversational AI. A virtual agent that handles inbound customer inquiries is conversational AI.

The intelligence layer makes the interaction feel like a conversation rather than a database lookup.

The channel, the modality, the interface: those are separate from the intelligence. Which brings us to voice AI.

Voice AI: The delivery method

Voice AI is conversational AI delivered through spoken language. It’s the application of conversational AI intelligence to voice-based interactions where the input is speech and the output is speech.

A voice AI system:

• Takes spoken words
• Converts them to text via speech-to-text (STT)
• Runs that text through a conversational AI layer to understand intent and generate a response
• Converts that response back to spoken audio via text-to-speech (TTS)

And it does it all fast enough that the conversation doesn’t feel like it’s buffering.

Voice AI isn’t a fundamentally different kind of intelligence from conversational AI. It’s conversational AI with a voice interface wrapped around it. The reasoning, the context tracking, the dialogue management—those are the same capabilities.

What voice AI adds is the ability to operate through spoken language in real time, with all the additional complexity that introduces: handling interruptions, managing turn-taking, producing natural-sounding speech, and doing all of it with sub-500ms latency.

Ultimately, conversational AI is how the system thinks. Voice AI is how it talks.

How they relate

Voice AI depends on conversational AI to be useful. Without the intelligence layer (intent recognition, context tracking, and coherent response generation), a voice system is just a phone menu with better audio.

The voice interface makes the interaction accessible through speech. The conversational AI makes the interaction worth having.

The relationship goes one way, though.

Every voice AI system uses conversational AI underneath it. But conversational AI doesn’t require voice. A text-based chatbot, messaging bot, or AI assistant embedded in a ticketing system are conversational AI without any voice component.

It’s not really a question of whether you need conversational AI or voice AI. It’s better to ask: does your use case require voice?

• If yes, you need voice AI—which means you also need conversational AI as the foundation.
• If the interaction is text-based, you need conversational AI without the voice layer.

Voice AI vs. conversational AI: Key differences

Side by side, the differences get a lot clearer. Here’s the breakdown across the criteria that matter most for teams building or buying AI for customer service.

When to use conversational AI without voice

Text-based conversational AI makes sense when your customers primarily engage through chat, messaging, or digital channels. And when the nature of the interaction doesn’t require the immediacy of a phone call.

• Support chat on a website
• WhatsApp automation
• AI-assisted email triage
• Messaging bots for transactional notifications

These are all conversational AI use cases where voice doesn’t add much and may introduce unnecessary friction. Not every customer wants to speak out loud, especially in public, at work, or when the question is simple enough to type in thirty seconds.

Text-based conversational AI is also typically faster to deploy, easier to test, and simpler to update. You can iterate on response quality, test new flows, and review transcripts without dealing with audio quality, latency optimisation, or the additional infrastructure that voice requires.

If your primary support and engagement channels are digital and your customers are comfortable typing, starting with text-based conversational AI often makes more sense than jumping straight to voice.

When you need voice AI specifically

Voice AI makes sense when the use case is inherently telephonic, time-sensitive, or requires the kind of nuance that text alone doesn’t capture.

• Inbound phone support: Customers call because they want to talk to someone, or because they’ve always called, or because the issue feels urgent enough that they don’t want to wait for a chat response. An AI that can answer that call, understand the issue, and resolve it in the same interaction replaces one of the most expensive and frustrating moments in customer service.
• Outbound calling: Appointment reminders, fraud alerts, lead follow-up, proactive outreach for at-risk customers. These interactions are harder to execute over text because they require real-time dialogue.
• Context: Tone, urgency, frustration, hesitation—these are signals that a voice AI system can detect and respond to. A customer who speaks with audible frustration is communicating something beyond the literal words, and a well-designed voice AI system can adjust its approach accordingly.

Finally, voice AI matters when your customers are less likely to engage through digital channels. These might be older demographics, industries where phone is still the primary contact method, or use cases where hands-free interaction is a practical requirement.

Do you need both?

For most businesses building serious customer engagement infrastructure: yes.

The customers who prefer chat aren’t going away. Neither are the customers who pick up the phone. A complete AI engagement strategy handles both with a single connected experience rather than two separate systems that don’t know about each other.

And that’s where Twilio Conversations can help.

• Conversation Orchestrator connects voice, SMS, WhatsApp, and chat into one continuous conversation record.
• Conversation Memory gives every agent (AI or human) persistent customer context across channels.
• Conversation Relay handles the voice AI layer: low-latency STT and TTS, bring-your-own-LLM, HIPAA-eligible.
• Agent Connect lets you plug your own AI agents into Twilio channels without rebuilding your communications infrastructure.

Your customers are going to use both voice and text. The question is whether your stack connects them.

Start for free or contact sales to talk through your use case.

Frequently asked questions

What’s the difference between voice AI and conversational AI?

Conversational AI is the intelligence layer that understands human language and generates contextually relevant responses, regardless of channel. Voice AI is conversational AI delivered through spoken language. It adds speech-to-text and text-to-speech components so the interaction happens via voice.

Is voice AI a type of conversational AI?

Yes. Voice AI is a specific application of conversational AI that operates through spoken language. The reasoning, intent recognition, and dialogue management capabilities come from conversational AI. Voice AI adds the speech interface on top to convert spoken input to text, process it through the conversational AI layer, and convert the response back to speech.

Can conversational AI work without voice?

Yes. Text-based chatbots, messaging bots, AI assistants in ticketing systems, and email AI are all forms of conversational AI that don’t use voice.

Does Twilio support both voice AI and conversational AI?

Yes. Twilio Conversation Relay handles voice AI, combining low-latency STT and TTS with bring-your-own-LLM flexibility. The broader Twilio Conversations platform connects voice, SMS, WhatsApp, and chat into a single conversation layer, so the conversational AI intelligence and customer context are shared across every channel.

To learn more about Twilio conversations, visit here.

Apple surprised the tech industry after financial markets closed Friday with news the company has sued OpenAI, alleging theft of trade secrets for ChatGPT hardware. The lawsuit particularly targets some senior ex-Apple employees now working at OpenAI.

Apple’s suit names two former employees — Chang Liu and Tang Tan, former vice president for product design, iPhone and Apple Watch — as well as OpenAI and that company’s recently-acquired firm, io Products, alleging “trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.” 

Jony Ive, who sold io Products to OpenAI, is not named in the lawsuit, though it seems relevant that Tan was one of the senior ex-Apple executives who founded that company.

For its part, OpenAI issued a brief statement in response to the litigation. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” the company said. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”

The allegations against Tan

Some of the claims and allegations included in Apple’s lawsuit include:

• That in the months before leaving Apple, Tan met with OpenAI or its collaborators and discussed meetings with a key Apple supplier.
• He emailed himself information about suppliers and internal summaries.
• When interviewing former Apple staffers for jobs, he used confidential information, such as internal project code names, to gain even more knowledge.
• He asked candidates to bring actual parts from Apple to interviews to discuss — and a then-Apple employee screenshotted and downloaded files concerning a highly confidential Apple project before attending an OpenAI recruitment session.
• Tan asked Apple employees to bring CAD/design artifacts to their interviews.
• Tan allegedly instructed new hires on how to avoid scrutiny when leaving Apple, such as instructing them not to tell the company they had taken jobs at OpenAI.

The ‘so funny’ laptop bug

The lawsuit also claimed that after quitting Apple for OpenAI in January 2026, Chang Liu managed to keep or “otherwise acquire” an Apple-issued notebook which he used to access confidential data on the company’s private network while at OpenAI. “LOL, I found out I can access the [server], so funny,” Liu texted a friend still working at Apple.

The suit alleges that he made no effort to report the situation, which was a bug in the system he had uncovered. Apple eventually discovered the exfiltration was taking place and took steps to prevent it, but Liu allegedly downloaded more than 1,000 pages of data, including “confidential technical presentations, spreadsheets, PDFs, and written work product,” Apple said.

“Only OpenAI and Mr. Liu know all the ways they have been exploiting the trove of Apple confidential information he stole, and to the extent they have not concealed or destroyed the evidence of these misappropriations, it will be investigated thoroughly in discovery.” 

Apple’s lawsuit also alleges Liu was simultaneously coaching a current Apple employee named Alyssa Peng on how to copy files from Apple workstations without triggering the security team, asking her to get specific confidential information and using Apple’s stolen data to help her get ready for an eventual OpenAI interview.

Why this could get bigger

There’s much in the litigation that it will garner serious international attention as it unfolds. Apple’s argues that a competitor with access to so much of its own proprietary information could “bypass years of independent research and development, skip the capital expenditure required to build genuine expertise, and bring products to market faster and at lower cost, harming the value of Apple’s investments.”

It’s not just the secrets behind actively-used processes Apple is protecting; the company is also asserting its rights to regain control of information it has assembled over time concerning processes and manufacturing attempts that have failed. That’s understandable – you can invest a lot of money in finding out what doesn’t work and knowing that is a trade secret in itself. 

“OpenAI coaches candidates to prepare for their interviews by studying Apple’s confidential engineering documentation, internal presentations, and proprietary technical materials,” the litigation claims. “OpenAI then uses its insider Apple information to ask detailed questions to extract more: about Apple’s proprietary tools, vendor management processes, engineering methodologies, manufacturing workflows, and supplier relationships, for example.

“OpenAI has turned to trade secret misappropriation to free-ride off Apple’s decades of innovation,” Apple said. “This is the tip of the iceberg.” 

The lawsuit also confirms that Apple often designs and customizes the specialized machinery used in its suppliers’ factories, and that trade secrets concerning those efforts have been grabbed. The suit notes that OpenAI works with established Apple suppliers Foxconn, Luxshare, and Goertek on its own hardware.

If true, these allegations go right to the top of OpenAI’s hardware development plans. Tan is now OpenAI’s Chief Hardware Officer.

The lawsuit points out that OpenAI now employs more than 400 Apple engineers and executives (including the company’s former Vision Pro Vice President), suggesting its entire approach to hardware recruitment is based on extracting Apple’s proprietary knowledge from potential hires. 

“Apple lacks visibility into what’s been happening behind closed doors at OpenAI, where such misconduct is normalized and exemplified by leadership,” the lawsuit argues. “This much is clear, however: at every level, from members of its Technical Staff to its Chief Hardware Officer, and in coordination with business partners, OpenAI has been stealing Apple’s trade secrets and confidential information. As a natural result, OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets.”

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

Foto: Olezzo – shutterstock.com

Googles mobiles Betriebssystem Android blickt auf bescheidene Anfänge zurück und wurde über die Jahre immens weiterentwickelt – sowohl auf optischer als auch konzeptioneller und funktioneller Ebene. Im Folgenden haben wir alle jemals erschienenen (relevanten) Android-Versionen im Zeitverlauf für Sie zusammengestellt – inklusive ihrer jeweiligen Highlights.

Android 1.0/1.1

Sein offizielles Debüt feierte Android mit Version 1.0 im Jahr 2008 – damals noch ohne aparten Codenamen mit Backwerk-Bezug. In der Smartphone-Frühzeit waren die Dinge bei Android vor allem eines: simpel.

Foto: T-Mobile

Dennoch konnte das Google-Betriebssystem bereits mit integrierten Apps aufwarten, etwa Gmail, Google Maps, Kalender oder Youtube. Ein krasser Gegensatz zum heute gängigen (und besser aktualisierbaren) Standalone-App-Modell.

Android 1.5 Cupcake

Mit dem Release von Android 1.5 begann Google, die Versionen seines Mobile OS nach teigigen Leckereien zu benennen. Eine Tradition, die über etliche Jahre Bestand haben sollte. Mit Cupcake hielten diverse Optimierungen der Benutzeroberfläche Einzug – unter anderem in Form der ersten virtuellen Bildschirmtastatur.

Foto: Android Police

Vor allem führte Google mit Cupcake aber das Framework für Drittanbieter-App-Widgets ein, was sich schnell zu einem Android-Alleinstellungsmerkmal entwickelte. Mit Android Version 1.5 war es außerdem erstmals möglich, auch Videoaufnahmen zu realisieren.

Android 1.6 Donut

Im Herbst 2009 erblickte Android Version 1.6 – Codename Donut – das Licht der Welt. Diese Android-Version optimierte Googles mobiles Betriebssystem weiter, zum Beispiel mit Support für diverse verschiedene Bildschirmauflösungen und -formate. Ein besonders zukunftskritisches Feature für Android hielt mit der Unterstützung des Mobilfunkstandards CDMA Einzug. Letzteres begünstigte die folgende explosionsartige Ausbreitung von Android.

Foto: Google

Android 2.0/2.1 Eclair

Nur sechs Wochen nach Donut ließ Google Android 2.0 mit dem Codenamen Eclair auf die Nutzer los – einige Monate später folgte das 2.1-Update. Das erste Smartphone, das diese Android-Version nutzte, war Motorolas Milestone. Das Smartphone wurde in den USA unter der Bezeichnung “Droid” vermarktet und sollte den technikaffinen Gegenpol zu Apples iPhone bilden – zumindest legte das die relativ aggressive Marketingkampagne in den USA nahe:

Bei Apple dürfte jedoch vor allem für Verstimmung gesorgt haben, dass mit Eclair auch die bis dahin iOS-exklusive “Pinch-to-Zoom”-Funktionalität in Android eingeführt wurde. Die revolutionärsten Elemente dieser Android-Version waren jedoch sprachgesteuerte Turn-by-Turn-Navigation und Verkehrsinformationen in Echtzeit – bis dahin nicht realisierte Features in der Smartphone-Welt. Darüber hinaus hielten mit Eclair auch Live-Hintergrundbilder sowie die erste Speech-to-Text-Funktion Einzug.

Foto: Google

Android 2.2 Froyo

Mit Android 2.2 widmete sich Google (vier Monate nach dem Release von Version 2.1) hauptsächlich Performance-Optimierungen unter der Haube. Android Froyo erweiterte jedoch die Benutzeroberfläche um einige praktische Funktionen – darunter das inzwischen zum Standard gewordene Dock am unteren Rand des Startbildschirms sowie die erste Version von Voice Actions. Letzteres erlaubte den Benutzern, einige grundlegende Funktionen wie Wegbeschreibungen oder Notizen abzurufen, indem sie ein Icon antippen und anschließend einen Sprachbefehl folgen lassen.

Foto: Google

Bemerkenswert ist Android Version 2.2 vor allem auch deshalb, weil es den Android-Webbrowser mit Flash-Unterstützung ausstattete. Das war nicht nur wichtig, weil Flash damals im Web allgegenwärtig war, sondern auch weil Apple sich standhaft weigerte, das iPhone um Flash-Support zu erweitern. Das war eine ganze Zeit lang ein echter Vorteil für Android – bis sich die Flash-Dominanz schließlich in Luft auflöste.

Android 2.3 Gingerbread

Mit Gingerbread versuchte Google, Android im Jahr 2010 erstmals eine echte, “visuelle Identität” zu verleihen. Die Farbe des Android-Maskottchens breitete sich mit Android Version 2.3 über die gesamte Benutzeroberfläche aus. Der erste Schritt hin zu einer eigenständigen Designsprache.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android 3.0/3.1/3.2 Honeycomb

Die Android-Honeycomb-Ära markierte ab 2011 einen weiteren Umbruch: Android 3.0 war ein Tablet-exklusives Betriebssystem, das zum Marktstart des iPad-Konkurrenten Motorola Xoom veröffentlicht wurde. Auch die Point-Updates 3.1 und 3.2 waren exklusiv auf die zu dieser Zeit stark gefragten Tablets ausgelegt.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Zwar hatte das Konzept der Tablet-spezifischen Oberfläche schon nach kurzer Zeit wieder ausgedient – allerdings wurden mit Android 3.0 zahlreiche Ideen umgesetzt, die das heute bekannte Android definiert haben: Honeycomb war die erste Android-Version, die die Nutzer essenzielle Navigationsbefehle über virtuelle Bildschirmtasten erledigen ließ und führte das Konzept einer “Karten-basierten” UI ein.

Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich

Während Honeycomb so etwas wie eine “Brückenversion” darstellte, bildete Android 4.0 – Codename Ice Cream Sandwich – den offiziellen Einstiegspunkt in die neue Android-Designwelt. Veröffentlicht wurde diese Version ebenfalls im Jahr 2011 – und verfeinerte in erster Linie die mit Honeycomb eingeführten, visuellen Konzepte. Zudem vereinheitlichte Google mit dieser Android-Version sein Betriebssystem für Mobiltelefone und Tablets.

Mit Android 4.0 wurde zudem die Steuerung über Wischbewegungen als integrale Methode etabliert, um sich zurechtzufinden – eine damals weltbewegende Neuerung. Darüber hinaus markierte Ice Cream Sandwich auch den Beginn der Umstellung des Android-Ökosystems auf ein standardisiertes Design-Framework, auch bekannt als “Holo“.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android 4.1/4.2/4.3 Jelly Bean

Die Jelly-Bean-Ära erstreckte sich über drei Android-Versionen und die Jahre 2012 und 2013. Dabei wurde das frische Fundament von Ice Cream Sandwich mit Bedacht, aber zielstrebig weiter optimiert und ausgebaut. Ergebnis war ein Android-Betriebssystem, das mit neuem Schwung und Glanz zunehmend auch Mobile-Durchschnittsbenutzer begeistern konnte.

Abgesehen von der Optik brachte Jelly Bean auch einen ersten Vorgeschmack auf Google Now (das leider inzwischen zu einem zweitklassigen Newsfeed verkommen ist). Weitere Benefits, die mit Android Jelly Bean Einzug hielten, waren unter anderem ein erweitertes (sprachbasiertes) Suchsystem und Multi-User-Support. Letzteres stand allerdings nur auf Tablet-Geräten zur Verfügung. Davon abgesehen, gab auch das Quick Settings Panel in dieser Android-Version sein Debüt – genauso wie Widgets für den Sperrbildschirm.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android 4.4 KitKat

Mit Version 4.4 kam das Zeitalter der dunklen Farbgebung bei Android zu einem Ende. KitKat brachte Ende 2013 frischere, hellere Farben für Googles Betriebssystem und sorgte damit für eine umfassende, optische Modernisierung. Premiere feierte mit Android 4.4 außerdem das allseits bekannte “OK, Google”-Freihand-Feature (das damals nur funktionierte, wenn der Startbildschirm oder die Google-App bereits geöffnet war).

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Die Nutzer von Google-eigenen (Nexus-)Smartphones durften sich zudem erstmals an einem Startbildschirm-Panel erfreuen, das exklusiv für Google-Dienste reserviert war.

Android 5.0/5.1 Lollipop

Mit Lollipop führte Google im Herbst 2014 den bis heute gültigen Material-Design-Standard bei Android ein, der sich nicht nur auf das Betriebssystem selbst, sondern auch auf Apps und andere Google-Produkte auswirkte. Das kartenbasierte User Interface, das bislang punktuell in Android eingesetzt wurde, wurde mit Android 5.0 zum zentralen Designaspekt.

Davon abgesehen, brachte Android Lollipop auch einige neue Funktionen in die Android-Welt – unter anderem den weiterentwickelten “Ok, Google”-Befehl, Multi-User-Support für Mobiltelefone sowie ein optimiertes Benachrichtigungsmanagement. Leider flossen mit Lollipop auch diverse Bugs ein, die in weiten Teilen erst mit der Android-Version 5.1 ab 2015 vollständig behoben werden konnten.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android 6.0 Marshmallow

Im Großen und Ganzen war Marshmallow – ebenfalls im Jahr 2015 veröffentlicht – eine eher unbedeutende Android-Version, die mehr wie ein Point-Update wirkte. Allerdings setzte Marshmallow den Startpunkt dafür, dass Google jährlich eine große neue Android-Version veröffentlicht.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Das auffälligste Marshmallow-Feature war die vielversprechende Bildschirmsuchfunktion “Now On Tap” – die leider nie weiterentwickelt und 2016 still und heimlich beerdigt wurde. Android 6.0 enthielt jedoch auch einige subtilere Neuerungen, etwa granularere App-Berechtigungen sowie Support für Fingerabdruckscanner und USB-C.

Android 7.0/7.1 Nougat

Die Android-Versionen mit dem Codenamen Nougat wurden 2016 veröffentlicht und ergänzten Googles Mobile OS um einen nativen Split-Screen-Modus, ein neues System, um Benachrichtigungen zu managen, und eine Data-Saver-Funktion. Darüber hinaus hatte Android 7.0 bis 7.1 auch einige kleinere, aber dennoch wichtige Features an Bord – beispielsweise einen Shortcut, um zwischen Apps zu wechseln.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Die vielleicht wichtigste Neuerung von Android Nougat war jedoch die Möglichkeit, den Google Assistant zu integrieren, der etwa zwei Monate nach dem Nougat-Debüt (zusammen mit Google erstem Pixel-Smartphone) vorgestellt wurde. Der Assistant entwickelte sich in den kommenden Jahren zu einer wichtigen Android-Komponente (und den meisten anderen Google-Produkten).

Android 8.0/8.1 Oreo

Mit Version 8.0 und 8.1 – veröffentlicht im Jahr 2017 unter dem Codenamen Oreo – erhielt Android weitere Annehmlichkeiten. Unter anderem einen nativen Bild-in-Bild-Modus, eine Schlummerfunktion für Notifications sowie tiefgehendere Möglichkeiten, App-Benachrichtigungen zu kontrollieren.

Darüber hinaus war diese Android-Version auch ein Versuch von Google, Android und Chrome OS näher zusammenzubringen und die Nutzung von Android-Apps auf Chromebooks zu optimieren. Davon abgesehen war Android 8 auch vom ehrgeizigen Bestreben geprägt, mit “Project Treble” eine modulare Basis für den Android-Quellcode zu schaffen. Die Hoffnung: Es den Geräteherstellern einfacher zu machen, zeitnah Software-Updates bereitzustellen.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android 9 Pie

Android-Version 9, auch bekannt unter dem Codenamen Pie, brachte im August 2018 frischen Wind in Googles Mobile-Ökosystem. Die wesentlichste Änderung war dabei ein hybrides Gesten-Button-Navigationssystem, das die traditionellen Navigationstasten mit einem großen, multifunktionalen “Home Button” ersetzte.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android Pie enthielt allerdings auch einige bemerkenswerte neue Productivity-Funktionen, beispielsweise ein universelles System, um mit vorgeschlagenen Antworten auf Nachrichten zu reagieren oder ein intelligenteres Energiemanagement. Erwähnenswert sind bei dieser Android-Version zudem zahlreiche Optimierungen in Sachen Datenschutz und Sicherheit.

Android Version 10

Im September 2019 ereilte der nächste Umschwung auch die Backwerk-affine Nomenklatur: Android 10 war die erste Version, die ausschließlich mit einer Zahl bezeichnet wird. Dazu passend brachte die Betriebssystem-Software auch eine völlig neu gestaltete Oberfläche mit sich, die ab diesem Zeitpunkt vollständig auf Wischbewegungen ausgelegt war.

Zu den wichtigen Verbesserungen, die Android 10 darüber hinaus an Bord hatte, gehörten ein aktualisiertes App-Berechtigungssystem mit tioefergehenden Kontrollmöglichkeiten, eine “Darkmode”-Option, ein Fokusmodus sowie die Möglichkeit, abzuspielende Mediendateien automatisch mit Untertiteln zu versehen.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android Version 11

Mit Android Version 11 veröffentlichte Google im September 2020 ein umfassendes Software-Update, das zahlreiche Neuerungen brachte. Die wichtigste Änderung drehte sich um das Thema Datenschutz: Das mit Android 10 eingeführte Berechtigungssystem wurde um die Möglichkeit erweitert, Apps einmaligen Zugriff auf Standortdaten, Kamera oder Mikrofon zu gewähren.

Mit Android 11 erschwerte Google außerdem, dass Apps den Standort der Nutzer im Hintergrund ermitteln können und führte eine Funktion ein, die Apps automatisch Berechtigungen entzieht, wenn diese für längere Zeit nicht genutzt wurden. Auf Interface-Ebene bot Android 11 außerdem einen vereinheitlichten Media Player, eine Benachrichtigungshistorie, die Möglichkeit, alle verbundenen Geräte in einer Übersicht anzuzeigen sowie eine native Screen-Recording-Funktion.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android Version 12

Die finale Version von Android 12 präsentierte Google pünktlich zur Markteinführung seiner Smartphones Pixel 6 und Pixel 6 Pro im Oktober 2021. Die wesentlichen Fortschritte waren bei dieser Android-Version direkt sichtbar: Sie bot die wohl größte Interface-Überarbeitung bei Android seit Lollipop und führte einen aktualisierten Design-Standard namens “Material You” ein. Das fußt auf der Idee, das Erscheinungsbild des Betriebssystems mit dynamisch generierten Themes an die individuelle “Farbwelt” des Benutzers anzupassen.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Davon abgesehen hatte Android 12 auch ein (lange überfälliges) neues Widget-System sowie eine Reihe grundlegender Verbesserungen in den Bereichen Leistung, Sicherheit und Datenschutz zu bieten. In diesem Zuge erweiterte Google sein Betriebssystem auch um einen isolierten Bereich, der KI-Funktionen auch ohne Netzwerkzugriff und Datenexposition ermöglicht.

Android Version 13

Mit Android 13 veröffentlichte Google im August 2022 eine der bislang ungewöhnlichsten Android-Versionen: Sie ist eines der ehrgeizigsten Android-Updates überhaupt – beinhaltet gleichzeitig aber auch vornehmlich subtile Änderungen. Für das Nutzererlebnis spielte dabei auch eine tragende Rolle, auf welchem Device Android 13 installiert wurde. Für Tablets und faltbare Smartphones führte Android 13 ein gänzlich neues Interface-Design ein – mit dem Ziel, ein verbessertes Benutzererlebnis auf größeren Bildschirmen zu realisieren. Das schlug sich auch in einem auf Multitasking ausgelegten, aktualisierten Split-Screen-Modus und einer Taskbar im Chrome-OS-Stil nieder. Darüber hinaus schuf Android 13 auch die Vorraussetzung dafür, dass Pixel-Tablets als stationäres Smart Display fungieren konnten.

Mit Blick auf Smartphones war der Release von Android 13 weit weniger bedeutsam. Neben einigen kleineren visuellen Optimierungen führte diese Android-Version ein erweitertes System für die Zwischenablage ein, eine native Funktion, um QR-Codes zu scannen, sowie weitere Optimierungen in den Bereichen Datenschutz, Sicherheit und Leistung.

Android Version 14

Nach achtmonatiger Entwicklungsphase präsentierte Google Anfang Oktober 2023 Android 14 – zeitgleich zur Vorstellung seiner Pixel-8-Smartphones. Auch diese Android-Version kam eher subtil um die Ecke: Sie brachte zum Beispiel ein neues System zum Einsatz, um Text zwischen Apps im Drag-und-Drop-Verfahren auszutauschen, sowie native Anpassungsmöglichkeiten für den Android-Sperrbildschirm. Zudem durften die Nutzer mit Android 14 auf ein integriertes Dashboard zugreifen, um sämtliche ihrer Gesundheits- und Fitness-Daten zu managen.

Darüber hinaus enthält diese Android-Version eine Reihe wichtiger Erweiterungen für die Barrierefreiheit – etwa eine On-Demand-Lupe, verbesserten Support für Hörgeräte sowie die Möglichkeit, eingehende Nachrichten über den Kamerablitz zu visualisieren. Die Benutzer von Pixel 8 und Pixel 8 Pro durften mit Android 14 auch erstmals und exklusiv Googles KI-basierten Wallpaper Creator austesten.

Foto: JR Raphael | IDG

Android Version 15

Technisch betrachtet hat Google Android 15 bereits im September 2024 veröffentlicht – allerdings tauchte die neue Android-Version erst ab Mitte Oktober auf den hauseigenen Pixel-Geräten auf.

Mit Android 15 hält eine ganze eine Reihe bemerkenswerter neuer Funktionen Einzug. Darunter eine „Private Space“-Option, die es ermöglicht, sensible Applikationen beziehungsweise Inhalte mit einer zusätzlichen Authentifizierungsebene auszustatten. Davon abgesehen verbessert Version 15 auch die mit Android 13 eingeführten Multitasking-Systeme weiter: Die Android Taskbar ist jetzt optional dauerhaft präsent. Außerdem lassen sich bestimmte App-Kombinationen ab Version 15 mit einem Fingertipp im Split-Screen-Modus aufrufen.

JR Raphael / Foundry

Weitere nennenswerte Neuerungen von Android 15 sind ein neu designtes Lautstärkeregelungs-Panel sowie ein (Pixel-exklusives) „Adaptive Vibration“-Feature, dass die Vibrationsintensität an der jeweils aktuellen Umgebung ausrichtet.

Android Version 16

Mit dem Jahr 2025 hat Google beschlossen, seinen bisherigen Android-Upgrade-Zyklus aufzubrechen: Beginnend mit der Veröffentlichung von Version 16 sollen künftig pro Jahr zwei Android-Versionen erscheinen. Den ersten Teil dieses Versprechens hat Google bereits mit der Veröffentlichung von Android 16 im Juni 2025 umgesetzt.

Zu den wichtigsten neuen Funktionen von Android 16 zählen unter anderem Live-Updates – eine neue Art von Benachrichtigungen, die ähnlich funktionieren wie die Live-Aktivitäten bei iOS. Darüber hinaus verspricht Version 16 des Google-Mobile-Betriebssystems auch eine Reihe von Verbesserungen für die Benutzeroberfläche, ein besseres Desktop-Erlebnis sowie Support für striktere Netzwerksicherheitsregeln.   

Google

Android Version 17

Die erste Beta-Version von Android 17 wurde von Google Mitte Februar 2026 veröffentlicht. Eine zweite Beta folgte bereits wenig später. Die finale Version des aktuellen Google Mobil-Betriebssystems wurde Mitte Juni 2026 veröffentlicht. Ein Fokus liegt bei Android 17 auf einer optimierten User Experience für faltbare Devices und Tablets, ein weiterer auf KI.

(fm)

Dieser Artikel ist im Original bei unserer Schwesterpublikation Computerworld.com erschienen.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have failed to block a proposal extending the mass scanning of private communications, a measure they have previously rejected twice.

This time too, more votes were cast against the proposal than in favor, but due to the absence of numerous MEPs on the eve of the summer recess, the motion to reject did not attain the necessary absolute majority. The proposal passed by default.

Similarly, an amendment to require warrants for the scanning received more votes in favor than against, but failed to attain the necessary absolute majority to pass.

The so-called Chat Control 1.0 law will now be extended through 2028.

According to its supporters, the measure can be seen as a vital component in the fight against the sexual abuse of children, while opponents see it as a move to restrict privacy.

This has been a long-running battle within the European Union. Last November, the European Commission put a halt to proposals for large-scale monitoring and proposed a voluntary approach. This has now changed. Under the new measure, service providers will be able to scan private messages without a warrant. This affects direct messages on platforms including Discord, Skype, Instagram, Snapchat, and Xbox, as well as emails sent via Google’s Gmail and Apple’s iCloud. Encrypted services like WhatsApp remain unaffected.

“Today’s vote on the interim regulation was a setback, but the political battle over the permanent ‘Chat Control 2.0’ is just getting started. The resistance we saw in Parliament today was so strong that finding a majority for permanent, suspicionless mass scanning in future negotiations is a complete pipe dream,” wrote Patrick Beyer, a long-standing critic of the proposal and a former MEP himself.

In November, he warned that enterprises could be affected by the measure. “For a corporation, a ‘false positive’ could mean that confidential internal documents, code, or strategic plans are flagged and sent to external authorities or police forces without the company’s knowledge.”

Discussions on a permanent solution to the issue are continuing, with some firmly entrenched views on both sides. “The core dispute between the EU Parliament, member state governments, and the EU Commission remains the scanning of private chats: should it be indiscriminate, or targeted at criminal suspects?” wrote Beyer.

It is lap 47 of 57.

Before the race began, the team had already processed gigabytes of race data, simulations, tire models, weather forecasts, competitor tendencies and scenario plans. But on the pit wall, there is tension.

The race leader’s tires are degrading faster than predicted. A rival has just pitted for fresh tires and is closing the gap by three-tenths of a second per lap. The lead may not hold. In short, the race is not going to plan.

A strategist now has only seconds to synthesize live telemetry, competitor data, weather projections, tire inventory, track position and race simulations into one call that could determine the outcome.

They do not have those seconds because they are simply fast. They have them because the entire system behind the decision was designed that way: the data architecture, simulation models, communication protocols, decision rights, scenario playbooks and feedback loops all work together to compress complexity into a clear decision window.

What if this is not just a racing story? What if it is also a blueprint for how the best enterprises will operate in the AI era?

This builds on a broader shift I’ve described as the intent-driven future of work, where enterprise work begins less with navigating systems and more with expressing outcomes, context and intent.

The AI advantage will not belong to companies with the most tools. It will belong to companies that redesign how work senses, decides, acts and learns.

AI isn’t just a faster engine

The popular story about Formula 1 is usually about speed or the quality of the driver. The fastest car with the most powerful engine with the driver with the quickest reflexes will win. But anyone who follows the sport closely knows that raw speed is only the starting point.

Every car on the track is fast. Speed gets you into the race. It does not guarantee you a win.

The teams that win consistently do so because of the quality of the system surrounding the car. They connect telemetry, simulations, strategy, engineering, pit operations, driver judgment and real-time learning into one high-performance operating model.

Every part of that operating model matters. But the best individual part alone does not win the race.

Enterprise AI strategy is at risk of making the same mistake that would keep an F1 team stuck in the middle of the pack: investing heavily in the engine while underinvesting in the entire race system.

I see enterprising investing in more copilots, more agents, more dashboards, more tools and ultimately more automation. 

The AI systems perform their tasks at unprecedented speed. But the business outcomes do not change. In many ways, AI is becoming a new operating system of work not because it replaces every application, but because it changes how intent, context, workflow and execution come together.

That is the gap many organizations are now facing. They have access to powerful AI capabilities, but they have not yet redesigned the operating model around those capabilities. The result is faster individual task execution inside disconnected systems, fragmented workflows and unclear accountability. In fact, a recent McKinsey report found that 88% use AI but two-thirds haven’t scaled it.

The next phase of AI value will not come from simply adding more AI tools. It will come from redesigning how the enterprise senses, decides, acts and learns.

The enterprise has too many disconnected signals

Most enterprises do not suffer from a lack of signals. In fact, they are everywhere across the business.

Customer intent signals, campaign performance data, product usage patterns, sales activity, support interactions, contract information, financial indicators, employee sentiment, security events and operational metrics already exist throughout an organization.

The problem is signal fragmentation.

The average knowledge worker has become the integration layer of the enterprise. They move between CRM, marketing automation, analytics dashboards, spreadsheets, collaboration tools, support systems, workflow platforms and financial reports. Then they manually assemble context that no single system provides.

They do this to answer questions that should take seconds, not hours.

• Which customer needs attention?
• Which opportunity is at risk?
• Which process is slowing down execution?
• Which signal should trigger action?
• Which decision needs human judgment?

In Formula 1 terms, this would be like a pit crew strategist having to call five different team members to gather tire degradation data, track conditions, competitor lap times, fuel load, weather forecasts and pit stop windows before making a race-defining call.

The data exists. But the latency in accessing, interpreting and acting on it makes it less valuable at the moment of decision.

That is the signal-to-action gap. And closing that gap is one of the most important opportunities in enterprise AI.

The new operating model: Sense, decide, act, learn

The AI-native enterprise needs to operate more like a Formula 1 team: continuously sensing, deciding, acting and learning.