Tech

HP has new incentive to stop blocking third-party ink in its printers

HP, printers, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 12, 2026

The third option is for manufacturers to make available, such as via the manufacturer’s website, “to purchasers remanufactured cartridges, either manufacturer or nonmanufacturer branded, for, at minimum, registered products.”

As of this writing, 38,291 devices are under the EPEAT 1.0 registry. There are 163 products registered under EPEAT 2.0, but none are printers. This all underscores how new the EPEAT 2.0 registry is and the likelihood that the GEC is still working to register more devices, like printers.

Still, the Int’l ITC is skeptical about HP ever following EPEAT 2.0’s criteria, especially considering that “HP released firmware 2602A/B on January 29, 2026 across eleven printer models,” the trade group said in a press release last week. (At least some of the firmware updates, including for the nearly 9-year-old OfficeJet Pro 7720, appear to have come out in February.)

“HP’s recent behavior is emblematic of a larger pattern,” the Int’l ITC’s release said. “HP positions itself as a leader in sustainability, circular business models, and responsible product design, but instead of proactively aligning its products and practices with the highest environmental standards, such as EPEAT 2.0, HP puts profits first and waits until external scrutiny or the threat of non-compliance forces change.”

In an email discussion with Ars Technica, Tricia Judge, the Int’l ITC’s executive director and general counsel, pointed out that HP’s firmware update succeeded the launch of the EPEAT 2.0 registry. She explained why the Int’l ITC’s press release called out HP but no other printer manufacturers:

HP is the only one with lockout chips that are triggered using firmware “upgrades” that claim “security” as a justification for their existence. HP is the only one that misleads and frustrates its own customers when locking out the environmentally superior competition. The others have made some interesting attempts in the past to create a competitive advantage.

In 2023, the Int’l ITC wrote a letter to the GEC requesting that the GEC revoke at least 101 of HP’s printers from the (original) EPEAT registry, largely due to Dynamic Security. GEC denied the Int’l ITC’s request.

“EPEAT 1.0 was very basic (no interference with the use of remanufactured cartridges), and HP claimed that its statements (buried in its marketing materials and/or on its website) that it didn’t interfere with the use of remanufactured cartridges was a loophole that the GEC decided was acceptable,” Judge said. “We were trying to close that loophole with EPEAT 2.0. We didn’t get it as airtight as we hoped, but it is better.

HP didn’t respond to Ars Technica’s request for comment for this story.

HP has new incentive to stop blocking third-party ink in its printers Read More »

Apple’s MacBook Neo makes repairs easier and cheaper than other MacBooks

Apple, macbook neo, right to repair, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 12, 2026

Apple’s MacBook Neo is the company’s first serious effort to break into the sub-$1,000 laptop business, challenging midrange Windows laptops and Chromebooks with its $599 starting price and its focus on build quality rather than high-end performance.

One less-advertised change that may make the Neo more appealing to businesses, schools, and the accident-prone is that its internal design is a bit more modular and easier to repair than other modern MacBooks. That’s our takeaway after spending some time thumbing through the official MacBook Neo repair documentation that Apple published on its support site this week.

Replacements for pretty much any component in the Neo are simpler and involve fewer steps and tools than in the M5 MacBook Air. That includes the battery, which in the MacBook Air is attached to the chassis with multiple screws and adhesive strips but which in the Neo comes out relatively easily after you get some shielding and flex cables out of the way.

But the most significant change in the Neo is that the keyboard is its own separate component. For essentially all modern MacBooks, going back at least as far as the late-2000s unibody aluminum MacBook designs, the keyboard has been integrated into the top part of the laptop case and is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replace independently.

Apple refers to this big, unified component as the “top case,” and anyone who has ever had to pay to repair one out of warranty can attest to how expensive they are. For the old M1 MacBook Air, a top case from Apple’s first-party self-service parts store will run you about $220 after you send the old defective part back to Apple. For the 14-inch MacBook Pro, Apple will only sell you a top case replacement along with a battery, which costs a whopping $440 after you send the old component back to the company.

Apple’s MacBook Neo makes repairs easier and cheaper than other MacBooks Read More »

14,000 routers are infected by malware that’s highly resistant to takedowns

ASUS, Biz & IT, botnets, distributed hash tables, malware, routers, Security, Tech / Paul Patrick / March 11, 2026

Researchers say they have uncovered a takedown-resistant botnet of 14,000 routers and other network devices—primarily made by Asus—that have been conscripted into a proxy network that anonymously carries traffic used for cybercrime.

The malware—dubbed KadNap—takes hold by exploiting vulnerabilities that have gone unpatched by their owners, Chris Formosa, a researcher at security firm Lumen’s Black Lotus Labs, told Ars. The high concentration of Asus routers is likely due to botnet operators acquiring a reliable exploit for vulnerabilities affecting those models. He said it’s unlikely that the attackers are using any zero-days in the operation.

A botnet that stands out among others

The number of infected routers averages about 14,000 per day, up from 10,000 last August, when Black Lotus discovered the botnet. Compromised devices are overwhelmingly located in the US, with smaller populations in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Russia. One of the most salient features of KadNap is a sophisticated peer-to-peer design based on Kademlia, a network structure that uses distributed hash tables to conceal the IP addresses of command-and-control servers. The design makes the botnet resistant to detection and takedowns through traditional methods.

“The KadNap botnet stands out among others that support anonymous proxies in its use of a peer-to-peer network for decentralized control,” Formosa and fellow Black Lotus researcher Steve Rudd wrote Wednesday. “Their intention is clear: avoid detection and make it difficult for defenders to protect against.”

Distributed hash tables have long been used to create hardened peer-to-peer networks, most notably BitTorrent and the Inter-Planetary File System. Rather than having one or more centralized servers that directly control nodes and provide them with the IP addresses of other nodes, DHTs allow any node to poll other nodes for the device or server it’s looking for. The decentralized structure and the substitution of IP addresses with hashes give the network resilience against takedowns or denial of service attacks.

14,000 routers are infected by malware that’s highly resistant to takedowns Read More »

Windows 11’s Steam Deck-ish, streamlined Xbox gaming UI comes to all PCs in April

gaming, microsoft, rog xbox ally x, Tech, Windows 11, xbox / Tim Belzer / March 11, 2026

When Asus and Microsoft launched the ROG Xbox Ally X last summer, it came with a bespoke controller-driven full-screen interface running on top of Windows 11. The handheld was still running Windows under the hood, and you could bring up the typical Windows desktop any time, but it defaulted to the full-screen gaming UI.

Then called either the “Xbox Experience for Handheld” or the “Xbox Full-Screen Experience (FSE)” depending on who you asked and when, Microsoft said it would be available on all Windows PCs at some point in 2026. That point has apparently arrived: Microsoft announced this week at the Game Developers Conference that other Windows 11 PCs “in select markets” would be getting what’s now being called “Xbox mode” starting in April.

Under the hood, a PC running in Xbox mode is still running regular-old Windows, with the same capabilities as any other PC. But there are system services and UI elements (like the standard Start menu and taskbar) that don’t launch when the system is in Xbox mode, something Microsoft claims can save a gigabyte or two of RAM while also allowing systems to use less energy. Users can return to Windows’ traditional desktop mode whenever they want, though.

Our experience with Xbox mode on the ROG Xbox Ally X was mixed; a Windows PC in Xbox mode is still a Windows PC, with both the broad game/app compatibility and the messiness that entails.

The seams between the controller-friendly interface and the mouse-and-keyboard version of Windows were the most visible when trying to download and launch games from third-party game stores like Steam and the Epic Games Store, which generally required you to use those store apps to buy and download games before they could be launched from the comfort of Xbox mode. We’ll have to test the update on other PCs after it rolls out to see whether Microsoft has made substantial improvements.

Windows 11’s Steam Deck-ish, streamlined Xbox gaming UI comes to all PCs in April Read More »

Intel shores up its desktop CPU lineup with boosted Core Ultra 200S Plus chips

intel, intel core ultra, Tech / Mike M. / March 11, 2026

Intel’s Core Ultra 200S desktop chips, codenamed “Arrow Lake,” first launched in late 2024, and they were the most significant updates to Intel’s desktop CPU lineup in years. But that didn’t mean they were always improvements over what came before: while they’re power-efficient and run cooler than older 13th- and 14th-generation Core CPUs, they sometimes struggled to match those older chips’ gaming performance. And for gaming systems in particular, they’ve always had to live in the shadow of AMD’s Ryzen 7000 and 9000-series X3D processors, chips with extra L3 cache that disproportionately benefits games.

Intel doesn’t have a next-generation upgrade available for desktops yet, but it is shoring up its desktop lineup with a pair of upgraded chips. The Core Ultra 200S Plus processors (also referred to as Arrow Lake Refresh, in some circles) add more processor cores, boost clock speeds, add support for faster memory, and speed up the internal communication between different parts of the processor. Collectively, Intel says these improvements will boost gaming performance by an average of 15 percent.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and 270KF Plus (a real mouthful, all of these names are getting to be) add four more efficiency cores compared to the Core Ultra 7 265K, bringing the total number of cores to 24 (8 P-cores and 16 E-cores). If you wanted that many CPU cores previously, you would have had to spring for a Core Ultra 9 chip. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and 250KF Plus also get four more E-cores than the 245K, bringing its total to 6 P-cores and 12 E-cores.

Intel shores up its desktop CPU lineup with boosted Core Ultra 200S Plus chips Read More »

Testing Apple’s 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new “performance” cores

Apple, Apple M5, apple m5 max, apple m5 pro, Apple silicon, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 9, 2026

M5 Pro Max’s “performance” CPU cores definitely aren’t just rebranded E-cores.

The 16-inch MacBook Pro with the Apple M5 Max chip inside. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Apple’s M5 Pro and M5 Max make deceptively large changes to how Apple’s high-end laptop and desktop chips are built.

We’ve already covered those changes in some depth, but in essence: The M5 Pro and M5 Max are no longer monolithic chips with all the CPU and GPU cores and everything else packed into a single silicon die. Using an “all-new Fusion Architecture” like the one used to combine two Max chips into a single Ultra chip, Apple now splits the CPU cores (and other things) into one piece of silicon, and the GPU cores (and other things) into another piece of silicon. These two dies are then packaged together into one chip.

M5 Pro and M5 Max both use the same 18-core CPU die, but Pro uses a 20-core GPU die, and Max gets a 40-core GPU die. (Because the memory controller is also part of the GPU die, the Max chip still offers more memory bandwidth and supports higher memory configurations than the Pro one does.)

The other big change is that neither of these chips uses Apple’s “efficiency” CPU cores anymore. All of the M5 family’s large high-performance cores are now called “super” cores as of macOS 26.3.1, including the ones that originally launched as “performance” cores in the regular M5 last fall. The standard M5 still has smaller, slower efficiency cores, but M5 Pro and M5 Max use a third kind of CPU core instead, confusingly also called “performance” cores.

	Fastest cores	“Medium” cores	Efficiency cores	GPU cores	Memory bandwidth
M5 Max	Up to 6 (“super”)	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	Up to 40	Up to 614 GB/s
M5 Pro	Up to 6 (“super”)	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	Up to 20	307 GB/s MHz
M5	4 (“super”)	0	6	Up to 10	153 GB/s
M4 Max	Up to 12 (“performance”)	0	4	Up to 40	Up to 546 GB/s
M5	Up to 10 (“performance”)	0	4	Up to 20	273 GB/s
M4	4 (“performance”)	0	6	Up to 10	120 GB/s

Users will experience the M5 Pro and M5 Max mostly as the expected iterative upgrades over last-generation chips, the same thing delivered by most new Apple Silicon processor generations. But for the technically inclined, it’s worth digging a little deeper into the M5 Max, both to learn why it performs the way it does and to dispel confusion about what’s being rebranded (the new “super” cores), and what’s actually different (the new “performance” cores in M5 Pro and M5 Max, which definitely aren’t just rebranded efficiency cores).

If you’re interested in a slightly wider-ranging review of the new MacBook Pros, I’ll point you toward reviews of the M1, M3, and M4 generation models, as well as the one for the low-end 14-inch MacBook Pro with the standard M5 (now $100 more expensive than it was before, but with 1TB of base storage instead of 512GB).

Apple is using the same external design for these laptops that it has been using since 2021—it’s aging pretty well, and we still mostly like it, especially compared to late-Intel-era MacBook Pros. There’s just not much else to say about the design that hasn’t been said.

M5 Max benchmarks

In our testing, the fully enabled M5 Max’s single-core performance is about 10 percent higher than the fully enabled version of the M4 Max in last year’s 16-inch MacBook Pro. The multi-core performance improvements are more variable (Cinebench R23, which shows a 30 percent improvement, seems to be an outlier), but most tests also show a modest 10 or 12 percent improvement.

Graphics performance improvements are slightly more robust, measuring between 20 and 35 percent depending on the test. Apple suggests you may see more uplift on GPU compute workloads that can leverage the neural accelerator Apple has built into each M5-family GPU core.

The jump from the M4 Max to the M5 Max isn’t quite as large, expressed as a percentage, as it has been for the last couple generations; both M3 Max and M4 Max were big leaps from what had come before. But assuming you’re upgrading from an M1 or M2-based Pro, you’ll still be taking a big leap. Fears that stepping down from 12 of Apple’s best-performing CPU cores (in M4 Max) to just six of the best-performing cores are also a bit overblown, based on these results.

Compared to the basic M5 in the 14-inch MacBook Pro, the M5 Max’s single-core performance is roughly the same, which is in keeping with how Apple usually does things—stepping up to higher-end chips gets you better multi-core and graphics performance, but Apple doesn’t push the clock speeds upward on the individual cores the way that Intel or AMD do with their higher-end processors.

Multi-core performance increases between 66 percent (Geekbench) and 120 percent (Cinebench R23)—for sustained heavy workloads, an 18-core M5 Pro or M5 Max ought to be just about twice as fast as the M5, give or take. And jumping from the M5’s 10 GPU cores to the M5 Max’s 40 cores typically gets you between three and four times the graphics performance.

Measuring the M5 Max’s CPU power consumption with the powermetrics command-line tool, average power consumption during our Handbrake video encoding test is about 23 percent higher than M4 Max, and because of that increase, the chip uses just a bit more energy overall to do the same work. We observed a similar increase when comparing the M4 to the M5. But overall, power efficiency is roughly in line with past Apple Silicon generations.

While Apple only sent us an M5 Max-equipped MacBook Pro to test, for most CPU-based tasks, the M5 Pro should perform similarly. That’s because both chips are using the exact same silicon die for the CPU cores, Neural Engine, Thunderbolt and display controllers, and SSD controller. It’s the GPU die that separates the Pro from the Max; the Pro has up to 20 GPU cores and 307 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the Max has up to 40 GPU cores and up to 614 GB/s of memory bandwidth (these are two totally different GPUs—the Max GPU isn’t just two Pro GPUs joined together with the Fusion Architecture).

M5 Max under the hood: Definitely not efficiency cores

The whole “performance cores are now super cores in all M5 chips” thing has created a lot of confusion around the non-Super cores. The M5 Pro and M5 Max come with six super cores and 12 of what Apple is now calling “performance” cores, but are those just efficiency cores that have been rebranded to create the impression of higher speeds?

Apple has said publicly that these new performance cores are “all-new” and “optimized for power-efficient, multithreaded workloads,” and we’re told that the performance cores are new designs that are derived from the super core. There’s precedent for this; AMD ships functionally identical but physically smaller, lower-clocked Zen 4c and Zen 5c cores in many of its laptop CPUs, rather than using different core designs for the big and little cores (as Intel still does, and as Apple has likely been doing up till now).

I can’t speak to the actual low-level architecture of each type of CPU core, but using both powermetrics and the sysctl command, we can confirm that these aren’t just rebranded efficiency cores. The new performance cores have more L2 cache than the M5’s efficiency cores and run at much higher peak clock speeds.

	L1 instruction cache	L1 data cache	L2 cache	Minimum clock	Maximum clock
M5/M5 Pro/M5 Max super core	192KB	128KB	16MB per cluster	1,308 MHz	4,608 MHz
M5 Pro/M5 Max performance core	128KB	64KB	8MB per cluster	1,344 MHz	4,308 MHz
M5 efficiency core	128KB	64KB	6MB per cluster	972 MHz	3,048 MHz

The new non-super performance cores have the same L1 cache sizes as Apple’s E-cores, but slightly more L2 cache per 6-core cluster and much higher minimum and maximum clock speeds. At about 4.3 GHz, the M5 Max’s performance cores come in only 300 MHz lower than the super cores’ 4.6 GHz peak.

We can also report that the powermetrics tool uses new under-the-hood nomenclature for reporting data about these performance cores. Powermetrics still refers to the cluster of super cores as the “P-cluster,” and the M5’s E-cores are still referred to as the “E-cluster.” But the new performance core clusters are labeled “M0 cluster” and “M1 cluster.” (M for Middle, maybe? Medium? It’s very likely that Apple started working on these core designs before it decided what their public-facing name should be.)

What I can’t say is whether macOS treats these new performance cores any differently than it would treat the E-cores. From the operating system’s perspective, you still have one group of CPU cores that runs at high speeds and one group that runs at lower speeds, and my guess would be that anything that would be directed at an E-core in the M5 or an older Mac will simply be directed to the performance cores in an M5 Pro or M5 Max system. But it’s totally possible that M5 Pro or M5 Max systems could assign tasks to different CPU cores slightly differently, since the performance gap between the “big” and “little” cores isn’t as large.

Finally, let’s look at how the M5 Max’s CPU cores perform under the sustained heavy load of our Handbrake video encoding test.

Clock speed measurements for the “super” clusters on M5 and M5 Max during our CPU-based Handbrake video encoding test, which uses all CPU cores in a system at once.

Observe the standard Apple M5 in the 14-inch MacBook Pro. The M5’s four super cores maintain a peak multi-core clock speed of 4.24 GHz for a bit less than a minute, then fall slightly to a clock speed closer to 4.1 GHz, and ramp down further to about 4.0 GHz for the last stretch of the test. (Note that the fanless version of the M5 in the MacBook Air starts lower, drops off faster, and settles down to a sustained clock speed somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 GHz.)

The standard M5’s E-cores also run at fairly consistent speeds of around 3 GHz throughout the test, with some peaks and valleys but little sign of any performance throttling.

Now look at the lines for the M5 Max in the 16-inch MacBook Pro. The 6-core supercluster maintains its maximum clock speed for just a few seconds, quickly dropping down to a sustained clock speed of around 3.9 GHz (with periodic dips as low as 3.4 GHz). There are two extra cores in the M5 Max’s super cluster, so slightly lower sustained clock speeds are to be expected.

But those performance cores are where a lot of M5 Max’s multi-core speed is coming from. In terms of clock speed, the two performance core clusters behave more like efficiency cores, insofar as they maintain a fairly stable clock speed without significant performance throttling. But these cores are running between 4.3 and 4.2 GHz rather than 3 GHz; even without other architectural changes, that means that these performance cores are going to run things quite a bit faster than the efficiency cores do.

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Testing Apple’s 2026 16-inch MacBook Pro, M5 Max, and its new “performance” cores Read More »

Apple’s 512GB Mac Studio vanishes, a quiet acknowledgment of the RAM shortage

Apple, Apple silicon, m3 ultra, m4 max, Mac Studio, ram shortage, Tech / Paul Patrick / March 7, 2026

If the only thing you had to go off was Apple’s string of product announcements this week, you’d have little reason to believe that there is a historic AI-driven memory and storage supply crunch going on. Some products saw RAM and storage increases at the same prices as the products they replaced; others had their prices increased a bit but came with more storage than before as compensation. And there’s the MacBook Neo, which at $599 was priced toward the low end of what Apple-watchers expected.

But even a company with Apple’s scale and buying power can’t totally defy gravity. At some point between March 4 and now, Apple quietly removed the 512GB RAM option from its top-tier M3 Ultra Mac Studio desktop. Pricing for the 256GB configuration has also increased, from $1,600 to $2,000. The Tech Specs page on Apple’s support site still acknowledges the existence of the 512GB configuration, but both the Apple Store page and the list of available configurations have removed any mention of it.

We’ve asked Apple to comment on the disappearance of the 512GB Mac Studio and will update this article if we receive a response.

It’s rare for Apple to pull any configurations of products it sells, aside from removing higher-capacity storage options for older iPhones after new ones come out. More commonly, the company will just increase its shipping estimates to reflect the supply chain backlog.

The 512GB Mac Studio was not a mass-market machine—adding that much RAM also required springing for the most expensive M3 Ultra model, which brought the system’s price to a whopping $9,499.

Apple’s 512GB Mac Studio vanishes, a quiet acknowledgment of the RAM shortage Read More »

Workers report watching Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of people using the bathroom

AI, AI privacy, lawsuit, Meta, Policy, privacy, ray-ban, smart glasses, Tech / Paul Patrick / March 5, 2026

Meta accused of “concealing the facts” about smart glass users’ privacy.

A marketing image for Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. Credit: Meta

Meta’s approach to user privacy is under renewed scrutiny following a Swedish report that employees of a Meta subcontractor have watched footage captured by Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses showing sensitive user content.

The workers reportedly work for Kenya-headquartered Sama and provide data annotation for Ray-Ban Metas.

The February report, a collaboration from Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten, and Kenya-based freelance journalist Naipanoi Lepapa, is, per a machine translation, based on interviews with over 30 employees at various levels of Sama, including several people who work with video, image, and speech annotation for Meta’s AI systems. Some of the people interviewed have worked on projects other than Meta’s smart glasses. The report’s authors said they did not gain access to the materials that Sama workers handle or the area where workers perform data annotation. The report is also based on interviews with former US Meta employees who have reportedly witnessed live data annotation for several Meta projects.

The report pointed to, per the translation, a “stream of privacy-sensitive data that is fed straight into the tech giant’s systems,” and that makes Sama workers uncomfortable. The authors said that several people interviewed for the report said they have seen footage shot with Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses that shows people having sex and using the bathroom.

“I saw a video where a man puts the glasses on the bedside table and leaves the room. Shortly afterwards, his wife comes in and changes her clothes,” an anonymous Sama employee reportedly said, per the machine translation.

Another anonymous employee said that they have seen users’ partners come out of the bathroom naked.

“You understand that it is someone’s private life you are looking at, but at the same time you are just expected to carry out the work,” an anonymous Sama employee reportedly said.

Meta confirms use of data annotators

In statements shared with the BBC on Wednesday, Meta confirmed that it “sometimes” shares content that users share with the Meta AI generative AI chatbot with contractors to review with “the purpose of improving people’s experience, as many other companies do.”

“This data is first filtered to protect people’s privacy,” the statement said, pointing to, as an example, blurring out faces in images.

Meta’s privacy policy for wearables says that photos and videos taken with its smart glasses are sent to Meta “when you turn on cloud processing on your AI Glasses, interact with the Meta AI service on your AI Glasses, or upload your media to certain services provided by Meta (i.e., Facebook or Instagram). You can change your choices about cloud processing of your Media at any time in Settings.”

The policy also says that video and audio from livestreams recorded with Ray-Ban Metas are sent to Meta, as are text transcripts and voice recordings created by Meta’s chatbot.

“We use machine learning and trained reviewers to process this data to improve, troubleshoot, and train our products. We share that information with third-party vendors and service providers to improve our products. You can access and delete recordings and related transcripts in the Meta AI App,” the policy says.

Meta’s broader privacy policy for the Meta AI chatbot adds: “In some cases, Meta will review your interactions with AIs, including the content of your conversations with or messages to AIs, and this review may be automated or manual (human).”

That policy also warns users against sharing “information that you don’t want the AIs to use and retain, such as information about sensitive topics.”

“When information is shared with AIs, the AIs will sometimes retain and use that information,” the Meta AI privacy policy says.

Notably, in August, Meta made “Meta AI with camera” on by default until a user turns off support for the “Hey Meta” voice command, per an email sent to users at the time. Meta spokesperson Albert Aydin told The Verge at the time that “photos and videos captured on Ray-Ban Meta are on your phone’s camera roll and not used by Meta for training.”

However, some Ray-Ban Meta users may not have read or understood the numerous privacy policies associated with Meta’s smart glasses.

Sama employees suggested that Ray-Ban Meta owners may be unaware that the devices are sometimes recording. Employees reportedly pointed to users recording their bank card or porn that they’re watching, seemingly inadvertently.

Meta’s smart glasses flash a red light when they are recording video or taking a photo, but there has been criticism that people may not notice the light or misinterpret its meaning.

“We see everything, from living rooms to naked bodies. Meta has that type of content in its databases. People can record themselves in the wrong way and not even know what they are recording,” an anonymous employee was quoted as saying.

When reached for comment by Ars Technica, a Sama representative shared a statement saying that Sama doesn’t “comment on specific client relationships or projects” but is GDPR and CCPA-compliant and uses “rigorously audited policies and procedures designed to protect all customer information, including personally identifiable information.”

Saama’s statement added:

This work is conducted in secure, access-controlled facilities. Personal devices are not permitted on production floors, and all team members undergo background checks and receive ongoing training in data protection, confidentiality, and responsible AI practices. Our teams receive living wages and full benefits, and have access to comprehensive wellness resources and on-site support.

Meta sued

The Swedish report has reignited concerns about the privacy of Meta’s smart glasses, including from the Information Commissioner’s Office, a UK data watchdog that has written to Meta about the report. The debate also comes as Meta is reportedly planning to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban and Oakley-branded smart glasses “as soon as this year,” per a February report from The New York Times citing anonymous people “involved with the plans.”

The claims have also led to a proposed class-action lawsuit [PDF] filed yesterday against Meta and Luxottica of America, a subsidiary of Ray-Ban parent company EssilorLuxottica. The lawsuit challenges Meta’s slogan for the glasses, “designed for privacy, controlled by you,” saying:

No reasonable consumer would understand “designed for privacy, controlled by you” and similar promises like “built for your privacy” to mean that deeply personal footage from inside their homes would be viewed and catalogued by human workers overseas. Meta chose to make privacy the centerpiece of its pervasive marketing campaign while concealing the facts that reveal those promises to be false.

The lawsuit alleges that Meta has broken state consumer protection laws and seeks damages, punitive penalties, and an injunction requiring Meta to change business practices “to prevent or mitigate the risk of the consumer deception and violations of law.”

Ars Technica reached out to Meta for comment but didn’t hear back before publication. Meta has declined to comment on the lawsuit to other outlets.

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Workers report watching Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of people using the bathroom Read More »

Amazon appears to be down, with over 20,000 reported problems

Amazon, Tech / Mike M. / March 5, 2026

Based on over 20,000 reports, Amazon appears to be experiencing an outage.

According to Downdetector, reports of problems started increasing at 1: 41 pm ET today. By 2: 26 pm, ET, Downdetector received 18,320 reports of problems with Amazon’s website. The number of complaints peaked at 3: 32 pm ET at 20,804.

As of this writing, Amazon hasn’t confirmed any specific problems. However, an Amazon support account on X said at 3: 02 pm ET today that “some customers may be experiencing issues” and that Amazon is working “to resolve the issue.”

Per Downdetector, 50 percent of reported problems happened at checkout, while 21 percent of outage reports came from mobile app users, and 17 percent of complaints pointed to problems with Amazon’s product pages.

Ars Technica can confirm that some product pages fail to load properly or at all, and that the Amazon homepage sometimes fails to load.

This story is developing…

Amazon appears to be down, with over 20,000 reported problems Read More »

Google and Epic announce settlement to end app store antitrust case

app stores, epic games, Google, play store, Tech / Kris Guyer / March 4, 2026

Google is in the midst of rewriting the rules for mobile applications, spurred by ongoing legal cases and an apparent desire to clamp down on perceived security weaknesses. Late last year, Google and Epic concocted a settlement that would end the long-running antitrust dispute that stemmed from Fortnite fees. The sides have now announced an updated version of the agreement with new changes aimed at placating US courts and putting this whole mess in the rearview mirror. The gist is that Android will get more app stores, and developers will pay lower fees.

A US court ruled against Google in the case in 2023, and the remedies announced in 2024 threatened to upend Google’s Play Store model. It tried unsuccessfully to have the verdict reversed, but then Epic came to the rescue. In late 2025, the companies announced a settlement that skipped many of the court’s orders.

Epic leadership professed interest in leveling the playing field for all developers on Android’s platform. But US District Judge James Donato expressed skepticism of the settlement in January, noting that it may be a “sweetheart deal” that benefited Epic more than other developers. The specifics of the arrangement were not fully disclosed, but it included lower Play Store fees, cross-licensing, attorneys’ fees, and other partnership offers.

It’s starting to look like both companies want to wrap up this case. For Epic, this all started as a way to avoid paying Google a 30 percent cut of Fortnite purchases—the game has been banned from the Play Store this whole time. Google, meanwhile, is in the midst of a major change to Android app distribution with its developer verification program. After all these years, the end is in sight. So the new settlement includes more explicit limits on Play Store fees and resurrects one of Donato’s more far-reaching remedies.

Google’s “new era” of apps

Representatives for Epic and Google have both expressed enthusiastic support for the newly announced settlement, which is subject to Judge Donato’s approval. The parties say the agreement will resolve their dispute globally, not only in the US.

The settlement affirms that developers in the Play Store will be able to steer users to other forms of payment. This is what got Fortnite pulled from the Play Store (and Apple App Store) back in 2020. When developers choose to use Google’s billing platform, they’ll pay lower fees as well.

Google and Epic announce settlement to end app store antitrust case Read More »

MacBook Neo hands-on: Apple build quality at a substantially lower price

Apple, Apple A18 Pro, Apple silicon, Mac, macbook neo, Tech / Mike M. / March 4, 2026

The Neo won’t be for everyone, but Apple has managed to preserve a premium feel.

Credit: Andrew Cunningham

NEW YORK CITY—Whether you’re talking about the iBook, MacBook, or MacBook Air, Apple’s most basic laptops have started at or within $100 of the $1,000 price point for over 20 years. Sure, the company had quietly been testing the waters with a Walmart-exclusive M1 MacBook Air configuration for several years, first at $699 and then at $599. But as far as what Apple would actively advertise and offer on its own site and in its own retail stores, we’ve never seen anything for substantially below $1,000.

The new MacBook Neo changes that. Apple has experimented with lower-cost products before, most notably with the $329 and $349 iPads and the old $429 iPhone SE. But this is the first time it has used that strategy for the Mac. The Neo starts at $599 for a version with 256GB of storage and no Touch ID sensor, and $699 for a version with Touch ID and 512GB of storage (each also available to educational customers for $100 less).

We had a chance to poke at a MacBook Neo for a while at Apple’s “special experience” event in New York this morning, and what I can tell you is that this does feel like an Apple laptop despite the lower starting price. It definitely has some spec sheet shortcomings, even compared to older M3 or M4 MacBook Airs that you still might be able to get at a discount from third-party retailers or Apple’s refurbished site—more on that in our full review next week. But it’s priced low enough to (1) appeal to people who might not have considered a Mac before, and (2) to make some of its borderline specs feel reasonable, and that’s enough to keep it interesting.

MacBook Air-ish

I had assumed, based on Apple’s history with its lower-end iPads and iPhones, that Apple would essentially reuse the design of the old M1 MacBook Air for this new MacBook. The Neo does share quite a few things in common with that older design, including a 13-inch notchless display, a 2.7 lb weight, and a lack of MagSafe connector. But this is actually a new design after all, one that’s more in line with the current Pro and Air iterations.

The Neo is a flat rectangular slab of aluminum with softly rounded edges, more like the current Airs and Pros than the wedge-shaped design of the old M1 Air (also like modern Airs, the words “MacBook Neo” appear nowhere on the exterior of the computer—the name only exists in stores and in software).

The low-end iPad can feel a bit cheap or hollow, partly because of the small gap between the front glass and the non-laminated LCD display underneath. But holding and interacting with the Neo feels substantially the same as interacting with an Air. It is, however, slightly thicker—an even 0.5 inches, up from 0.44 inches for the M4 Air.

The non-backlit keyboard is a bit of a bummer, although Apple has tried to keep it legible by shifting from white-on-black keycaps to darker legends on a lighter background. But the typing feel is similar to the Air, and we’re told the scissor switches have the same amount of key travel as the switches in the Air keyboards.

The multi-touch trackpad is a little weirder. It looks a lot like Apple’s other trackpads, but it actually has a physical clicking mechanism rather than the haptic feedback Apple has used in its laptop trackpads and Magic Trackpads for years. That means there’s no Force Click functionality and no controls for adjusting the firmness or noisiness of the clicking sensation.

Apple did, at least, figure out a mechanism that makes it feel the same to click anywhere on the trackpad. More traditional physical trackpads, including the ones Apple used to use, had a hinge toward the top of the trackpad that made clicking up there feel stiffer and firmer than clicking at the bottom or in the middle of the trackpad. The Neo’s trackpad doesn’t feel quite as solid, probably because of the space left to make room for a physical clicking mechanism, but, aside from the missing haptics, it seems to work just as well as Apple’s other trackpads.

The laptop’s ports may cause some confusion, for the same reason that any USB-C or Thunderbolt port can cause confusion—the ports look the same but do different things. Either of the laptop’s two USB-C ports can charge the laptop. But only the rear one supports 10 Gbps USB 3 transfer speeds, and it’s also the only one that can drive a display (one 4K screen at up to 60 Hz, down from two higher-resolution external displays for the Air). The port toward the front only supports 480 Mbps USB 2.0 transfer speeds, enough for a keyboard and many other external accessories, but not ideal for external storage.

Neither port is marked in any way, though macOS will apparently alert users if they try to plug something into the USB 2.0 port that won’t work with it.

The four colors of Neo: the pink-ish Blush, blue-tinted Indigo, yellowy Citrus, and traditional MacBook silver. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The internal display is great for the price, though it falls a bit short of both the current Airs and the M1 Air. The 13-inch 2408×1506 IPS LCD screen is just shy of the old M1 Air’s resolution, and it supports both 500 nits of maximum brightness and full coverage of the sRGB color gamut, both relatively rare in similarly priced PCs. But it’s missing DCI-P3 wide color support and the True Tone feature that subtly adjusts the color temperature of the display based on ambient lighting, two things that were still supported by the old M1 Air.

The biggest sticking point for many buyers will be the processor, an Apple A18 Pro that first appeared in the iPhone 16 Pro.

This chip includes six CPU cores (two performance, four efficiency) and a five-core GPU, which worked just fine under casual use in the hands-on area and in our briefing. We saw it running Safari with multiple tabs open, playing a game, and running Pixelmator Pro, and it handled all three tasks well. But the higher-end apps that aren’t bottlenecked by the CPU or GPU may be bottlenecked by its 8GB of RAM instead.

We’ll do more testing in our review to figure out where people will notice the specs in the real world and where they won’t, but suffice it to say, this isn’t the best laptop to pick if you want to make the most of a Creator Studio subscription.

All in all, the MacBook Neo seems well-positioned to satisfy those whom Apple is marketing it toward. Predominantly, that seems to be iPhone users who don’t have any kind of computer yet, or people who are unhappy with their budget Windows PC or Chromebook. Apple’s product page makes a big deal about the features that work across iOS and macOS and has a dedicated “new to Mac” section that pitches the platform to people who have never used it. The biggest downside for Apple is the risk that the Neo’s 8GB RAM limit and less-powerful chip will end up frustrating people who buy a Mac hoping to use Final Cut or Logic and bump into the limits of the hardware.

MacBook Neo hands-on: Apple build quality at a substantially lower price Read More »

Google Pixel 10a review: The sidegrade

Features, Google, Google Pixel, pixel 10a, Reviews, smartphones, Tech / Paul Patrick / March 4, 2026

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The camera now sits flush with the back panel. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

Google’s budget Pixels have long been a top recommendation for anyone who needs a phone with a good camera and doesn’t want to pay flagship prices. This year, Google’s A-series Pixel doesn’t see many changes, and the formula certainly isn’t different. The Pixel 10a isn’t so much a downgraded version of the Pixel 10 as it is a refresh of the Pixel 9a. In fact, it’s hardly deserving of a new name. The new Pixel gets a couple of minor screen upgrades, a flat camera bump, and boosted charging. But the hardware hasn’t evolved beyond that—there’s no PixelSnap and no camera upgrade, and it runs last year’s Tensor processor.

Even so, it’s still a pretty good phone. Anything with storage and RAM is getting more expensive in 2026, but Google has managed to keep the Pixel 10a at $500, the same price as the last few phones. It’s probably still the best $500 you can spend on an Android phone, but if you can pick up a Pixel 9a for even a few bucks cheaper, you should do that instead.

If it ain’t broke…

The phone’s silhouette doesn’t shake things up. It’s a glass slab with a flat metal frame. The display and the plastic back both sit inside the aluminum surround to give the phone good rigidity. The buttons, which are positioned on the right edge of the frame, are large, flat, and sturdy. On the opposite side is the SIM card slot—Google has thankfully kept this feature after dropping it on the flagship Pixel 10 family, but it has moved from the bottom edge. The bottom looks a bit cleaner now, with matching cut-outs housing the speaker and microphone.

Pixel 10a in hand — The Pixel 10a is what passes for a small phone now. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

Traditionally, Google’s Pixel A-series always had the same Tensor chip as the matching flagship generation. So last year’s Pixel 9a had the Tensor G4, just like the Pixel 9 and 9 Pro. The Pixel 10a breaks with tradition by remaining on the G4, while the flagship Pixels advanced to Tensor G5.

Specs at a glance: Google Pixel 9a vs. Pixel 10a
Phone	Pixel 9a	Pixel 10a
SoC	Google Tensor G4	Google Tensor G4
Memory	8GB	8GB
Storage	128GB, 256GB	128GB, 256GB
Display	1080×2424 6.3″ pOLED, 60–120 Hz, Gorilla Glass 3, 2,700 nits (peak)	1080×2424 6.3″ pOLED, 60–120 Hz, Gorilla Glass 7i, 3,000 nits (peak)
Cameras	48 MP primary, f/1.7, OIS; 13 MP ultrawide, f/2.2; 13 MP selfie, f/2.2	48 MP primary, f/1.7, OIS; 13 MP ultrawide, f/2.2; 13 MP selfie, f/2.2
Software	Android 15 (at launch), 7 years of OS updates	Android 16, 7 years of OS updates
Battery	5,100 mAh, 23 W wired charging, 7.5 W wireless charging	5,100 mAh, 30 W wired charging, 10 W wireless charging
Connectivity	Wi-Fi 6e, NFC, Bluetooth 5.3, sub-6 GHz 5G, USB-C 3.2	Wi-Fi 6e, NFC, Bluetooth 6.0, sub-6 GHz 5G, USB-C 3.2
Measurements	154.7×73.3×8.9 mm; 185g	153.9×73×9 mm; 183g

Google’s custom Arm chips aren’t the fastest you can get, and the improvement from G4 to G5 wasn’t dramatic. The latest version is marginally faster and more efficient in CPU and GPU compute, but the NPU saw a big boost in AI throughput. So the upgrade to Tensor G5 is not a must-have (unless you love mobile AI), but the Pixel 10a doesn’t offer the same value proposition that the 9a did. Most of the other specs remain the same for 2026 as well. The base storage and RAM are still 128GB and 8GB, respectively, and it’s IP68 rated for water and dust exposure.

Camera bump comparison — The Pixel 10a (left) has a flat camera module, but the Pixel 9a camera sticks out a bit. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

This is what passes for a small phone these days. The device fits snugly in one hand, and its generously rounded corners make it pretty cozy. You can reach a large swath of the screen with one hand, and the device isn’t too heavy at 183 grams. The Pixel 10 is about the same size, but it’s much heavier at 204 g.

At 6.3 inches, the OLED screen offers the same viewable area as the 9a. However, Google says the bezels are a fraction of a millimeter slimmer. More importantly, the display has moved from the aging Gorilla Glass 3 to Gorilla Glass 7i. That’s a welcome upgrade that could help this piece of hardware live up to its lengthy software support. Google also boosted peak brightness by 11 percent to 3,000 nits. That’s the same as in the Pixel 10, but the difference won’t be obvious unless you’re looking at the 9a and 10a side by side under strong sunlight.

Pixel 10a and keyboard glamor shot — Google isn’t rocking the boat with the Pixel 10a. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

There’s an optical fingerprint scanner under the screen, which will illuminate a dark room more than you would expect. The premium Pixels have ultrasonic sensors these days, which are generally faster and more accurate. The sensor on the 10a is certainly good enough given the price tag, and with Google increasingly looking to separate the A-series from the flagships, we wouldn’t expect anything more.

The new camera module is the only major visual alteration this cycle. The sensors inside haven’t changed, but Google did manage to fully eliminate the bump. The rear cameras on this phone are now flush with the surface, a welcome departure from virtually every other smartphone. The Pixel 10a sits flat on a table and won’t rock side to side if you tap the screen. The cameras on the 9a didn’t stick out much, but shaving a few millimeters off is still an accomplishment, and the generous battery capacity has been preserved.

The Tensor tension

Google will be the first to tell you that it doesn’t tune Tensor chips to kill benchmarks. That said, the Tensor G5 did demonstrate modest double-digit improvements in our testing. You don’t get that with the Pixel 10a and its year-old Tensor G4, but the performance isn’t bad at all for a $500 phone.

Pixel phones, including this one, are generally very pleasant to use. Animations are smooth and not overly elaborate, and apps open quickly. Benchmarks can still help you understand where a device falls in the grand scheme of things, so here are some comparisons.

Google builds phones with the intention of supporting them for the long haul, but how will that work when the hardware is leveling off? Tensor might not be as fast as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chips, but the architecture is much more capable than what you’d find in your average budget phone, and Google’s control of the chipset ensures it can push updates as long as it wants.

Meanwhile, 8 gigabytes of RAM might be a little skimpy in seven years, but you’re not going to see generous RAM allotments in budget phones this year—not while AI data centers are gobbling up every scrap of flash memory. Right now, though, the Pixel 10a keeps apps in memory well enough, and it’s not running as many AI models in the background compared to the flagship Pixels.

The one place you may feel the Pixel 10a lagging is in games. None of the Tensor chips are particularly good at rendering complex in-game worlds, but that’s more galling for phones that cost $1,000. A $500 Pixel 10a that’s mediocre at gaming doesn’t sting as much, and it’s really not that bad unless you insist on playing titles like Call of Duty Mobile or Genshin Impact.

You don’t buy a Pixel because it will blow the door off every game and benchmark app—you buy it because it’s fast enough that you don’t have to think about the system-on-a-chip inside. That’s the Pixel 10a with Tensor G4.

Pixel 10a from edge in hand — The Pixel 10a is fairly thin, but it has a respectable 5,100 mAh battery inside. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

The new Pixel A phone again has a respectable 5,100 mAh battery. That’s larger than every other Pixel, save for the 10 Pro XL (5,200 mAh). It’s possible to get two solid days of usage from this phone between charges, and it’s a bit speedier when you do have to plug in. Google upgraded the wired charging from 23 W in the 9a to 30 W for the 10a. Wireless charging has been increased from 7.5 W to 10 W with a compatible Qi charger. However, there are no PixelSnap magnets inside the phone, which seems a bit arbitrary—this could be another way to make the $800 Pixel 10 look like a better upgrade. We’re just annoyed that Google’s new magnetic charger doesn’t work very well with the 10a.

Some AI, lots of updates

Phones these days come with a lot of bloatware—partner apps, free-to-play games, sports tie-ins, and more. You don’t have to deal with any of that on a Pixel. There’s only one kind of bloat out of the box, and that’s Google’s. If you plan to use Google apps and services on the Google phone, you don’t have to do much customization to make the Pixel 10a tolerable. It’s a clean, completely Googley experience.

Naturally, Google’s take on Android has the most robust implementation of Material 3 Expressive, which uses wallpaper colors to theme system elements and supported apps. It looks nice and modern, and we prefer it over Apple’s Liquid Glass. The recent addition of AI-assisted icon theming also means your Pixel home screen will finally be thematically consistent.

Pixel 10a on leather background — Material 3 Expressive looks nice on Google’s phones. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

There’s much more AI on board, but it’s not the full suite of Google generative tools. As with last year’s budget Pixel, you’re missing things like Pixel Screenshots, weather summaries, and Pixel Studio—Google reserves those for the flagship phones with their more powerful Gemini Nano models. You will get Google’s AI-powered anti-spam tools, plenty of Gemini integrations, and most of the phone features, like Call Screen. If you’re not keen on Google AI, this may actually be a selling point.

One of the main reasons to buy a Pixel is the support. Pixels are guaranteed a lengthy seven years of update support, covering both monthly security patches and OS updates. You can expect the Pixel 10a to get updates through 2033.

Samsung is the only other Android device maker that offers seven years of support, but it tends to be slower in updating phones after their first year. Pixel phones get immediate updates to new security patches and even new versions of Android. If you buy anything else that isn’t an iPhone, you’ll be looking at much less support and much more waiting.

Google also consistently delivers new features via the quarterly Pixel Drops, and while a lot of that is AI, there are some useful tools and security features, too. Google doesn’t promise all phones will get the same attention in Pixel Drops, but you should see new additions for at least a few years.

Pixel camera on a budget

Google isn’t pushing the envelope with the Pixel 10a, and in some ways, the camera experience is why it can get away with that. There’s no other $500 phone with a comparable camera experience, and that’s not because the Pixel 10a is light-years ahead in hardware. The phone has fairly modest sensors in that new, flatter module, but Google’s image processing is just that good.

Pixel 10a camera — The Pixel camera experience is a big selling point. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

In 2026, Google’s budget Pixel still sports a 48 MP primary wide-angle camera, paired with a 13 MP ultrawide. There is no telephoto lens on the back, and the front-facing selfie shooter is also 13 MP. Of these cameras, only the primary lens has optical stabilization. Photos taken with all the cameras are sharp, with bright colors and consistent lighting.

Google’s image processing does a superb job of bringing out details in bright and dim areas of a frame, and Night Sight is great for situations where there just isn’t enough light for other phones to take a good photo. In middling light, the Pixel 10a maintains fast enough shutter speeds to capture movement, something both Samsung and Apple often struggle with.

Outdoor overcast. Ryan Whitwam

Pixel phones don’t have as many camera settings as a Samsung or OnePlus phone does—in fact, the 10a doesn’t even get as many manual controls as the flagship Pixels—but they’re great at quick snapshots. Within a couple of seconds, you can pop open the Pixel camera and shoot a photo that’s detailed and well-exposed without waiting on autofocus or fiddling with settings. So you’ll capture more moments with a Pixel than with other phones, which might not nail the focus or lighting even if you take a whole batch of photos with different settings.

Without a telephoto lens option, you won’t be able to push the Pixel 10a with extreme zoom levels like the more expensive Pixel 10 phones. You’re limited to 8x zoom, and things get quite blurry beyond 3-4x. Google’s image processing should be able to clean up a 2x crop well enough, but the image will look a bit artificial and over-sharpened if you look closely.

Video can be a weak point for Google. Samsung and Apple phones offer more options, and the quality of Google’s phones isn’t strong enough to make up for it. The videos look fine, but the stabilization isn’t perfect, and 4k60 can sometimes hiccup. It’s more what we’d expect from a $500 phone, whereas the 10a punches above its weight in still photography.

Running unopposed

It’s easy to be disappointed in the Pixel 10a when you look at the spec sheet. The hardware has barely evolved beyond last year’s phone, and it even has the same processor inside. This is a departure for Google, but it’s also expected given the state of the smartphone market. These are mature products, and support has gotten strong enough that you can use them for years without an upgrade. Smartphones are really becoming more like appliances than gadgets.

Pixel 10a vs. Pixel 10 — The Pixel 10 has a much larger camera module to accommodate a third sensor. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

Google’s Pixel line has finally started to gain traction as smaller OEMs continue to drop out and scale back their plans in North America. Google is not alone in the mid-range—Samsung and Motorola still make a variety of Android phones in this price range, but they tend to make more compromises than the Pixel does.

The latest Google Pixel is only marginally better than the last model, featuring the same Tensor G4 processor, 8GB of RAM, and dual-camera setup. The body has modest upgrades, including a flat camera module and a slightly brighter, stronger display. We’d all like more exciting phone releases, but Google has realized it doesn’t need to be flashy to dominate the mid-range.

Pixel 10a, Pixel 10, and Pixel 10 Pro XL — The Pixel 10a (left), Pixel 10 (middle), and Pixel 10 Pro XL (right). Credit: Ryan Whitwam

Even with a less-than-impressive 2026 upgrade, Google’s A-series Pixel remains a good value, just like its predecessor. The Pixel 9a was already much better than the competition, and the 10a is slightly better than that. With no real competition to speak of, Google’s new Pixel is still worth buying.

Of course, the very similar Pixel 9a remains a good purchase, too. Google continues to sell that phone at the same price. In fact, that’s true of the Pixel 8a in Google’s store, too. So you can have your choice of the new phone, the old phone, or an even older phone for the same $500. Google is clearly not concerned with clearing old stock. We expect to see at least occasional deals on last year’s Pixel. If you can get that phone even a little cheaper than the 10a, that’s a good idea. Otherwise, get used to spending $500 on Google’s mid-range appliance.

The good

Great camera experience
Long battery life
Good version of Android with generous update guarantee
Lighter and more compact than flagship phones

The bad

Barely an upgrade from Pixel 9a
Gaming performance is iffy

Ryan Whitwam is a senior technology reporter at Ars Technica, covering the ways Google, AI, and mobile technology continue to change the world. Over his 20-year career, he’s written for Android Police, ExtremeTech, Wirecutter, NY Times, and more. He has reviewed more phones than most people will ever own. You can follow him on Bluesky, where you will see photos of his dozens of mechanical keyboards.

Google Pixel 10a review: The sidegrade Read More »