Category: Technologies

Be careful what you download. Just because an app has made it through the usually strict vetting of Apple or Google doesn’t guarantee that it’s 100% safe.

To their credit, both tech giants are constantly on the hunt for apps that don’t play by their rules. For example, Apple says it rejected nearly 1.7 million app submissions last year for failing to meet its standards for privacy, security and content, while Google says it stopped 1.4 million policy-violating apps from being published in its store.

Despite those efforts, malicious apps out to steal your money or personal information still make it through the process. Researchers routinely find apps infected with malware designed to steal data, turn devices into bots used in denial-of-service or spam attacks or just load up your phone with unwanted ads that they can harvest fake clicks from to make money.

Generally speaking, those research reports quickly grab the attention of Apple and Google, who more often than not immediately remove the offending apps from their stores and take action against the developers behind them. But researchers warn that an app doesn’t have to be obviously malicious, or even violate Apple or Google’s rules for developers, to cause problems for users.

British cybersecurity company Sophos recently released a report singling out apps in both the Apple and Google stores that it says are using the popularity of open-source artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT to rip off consumers.

According to Sophos, the apps take advantage of loopholes in app-store policies to masquerade as ChatGPT-based chatbots, then overcharge those suckered into downloading them for their use.

The researchers say the free versions of the apps have “near-zero functionality” and inundate users with ads, which then prompts them to sign up for paid subscriptions that could cost them hundreds of dollars per year.

“They’re banking on the fact that users won’t pay attention to the cost or simply forget that they have this subscription,” Sean Gallagher, a principal threat researcher at Sophos, said in a statement.

Gallagher adds that the apps are specifically designed so that users might not get much use from them after the free trial ends, which could get them to delete the app without realizing that they’re still paying for it on a weekly or monthly basis.

The researchers investigated five of the so-called “fleeceware” apps, which all claimed to be based on ChatGPT’s algorithm. While OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, offers a free version of the AI online, the apps in question were charging hefty subscriptions to do much of the same thing.

For example, one app charges $6 per week after a three-day trial. That may not seem like much, but it adds up to more than $300 a year.

While some of the apps singled out in the report have since been removed from their respective app stores, others remain. The Sophos researchers noted in their report that because the apps are designed to sit just on the edge of violating developer rules, they don’t automatically trigger the kinds of automatic app store rejections that overtly malicious apps do.

They also pointed to the fact that both Apple and Google take hefty cuts of the money developers make from app subscriptions, giving them a strong financial incentive to allow the apps to stay in their stores and let the developers keep charging consumers.

Google released a statement saying that as noted in the Sophos report it has removed some of the apps mentioned and continues to investigate the others. It also pointed to its recent efforts to strengthen its anti-fleeceware policies. Apple didn’t respond to a CNET request for comment.

Ultimately, it’s up to users to be on the lookout for potentially misbehaving apps. Even when apps are removed from the stores, whether they be overtly malicious or just poorly made and scammy, the researchers say new ones quickly pop up in their place.

Here are some tips for spotting potentially malicious and scammy apps.

How to spot scam apps

Check the permissions. Listings in both Apple and Google’s app stores will show you exactly what a particular app wants to access in terms of your personal information. Sure, a maps app probably does need to access your location from time to time, but does that silly, time-wasting puzzle game you love so much? Don’t be afraid to say no if an app asks for access to data it doesn’t need.

Audit your apps. This can also be good for keeping your monthly spending in check. The settings in both Apple and Android phones will show you what apps you’re subscribed to and how much you’re paying for them. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that you’re still paying for apps that you just don’t use anymore. And if your “free trial” has turned into a hefty recurring charge, you’ll be able to see that too.

Remember, good reviews don’t automatically equal legitimacy. App reviews can be faked and copied. Don’t automatically assume that just because an app has thousands of five-star reviews that it’s safe. Recently released apps that already have lots of positive reviews should particularly be treated with suspicion. On the flip side, numerous bad reviews and low ratings also should be seen as red flags.

Check the icon and look for typos. If an app’s icon looks just like that of a popular one but is a little bit off, it could be a knock off. Lots of typos in an app’s description could also be a sign of that.

Be skeptical of big claims. Just like when it comes to emails and texts, apps that offer great deals on hot retail items, cheat codes for games or anything else that’s in high demand at the moment have the potential to be scams. Buyer beware.

Avoid third-party app stores. The apps in both Apple and Google’s stores are vetted by those companies before they’re allowed in. Apps downloaded from elsewhere might not be. They could easily be carrying malware or looking to rip you off. Avoid them.

Buying an affordable phone doesn’t mean suffering with nasty design and slow, frustrating hardware. These days you can get a phone that looks and acts almost like a flagship, and still have a bunch of cash left in your pocket. Google’s latest entry-level phone, the Pixel 7A, packs an amazing lineup of specs, at a very attractive price. Yet the older Pixel 6A remains on sale for even less and is a great option for people on a tighter budget.

Meanwhile, Samsung has a solid value offering in the form of the Galaxy A54 5G, which ticks all your everyday, essential boxes and can frequently be found on sale at an extremely competitive price.

But which of these phones should you buy to make the best use of your money? I put the three side by side to help you choose.

Price

As the most recent phone, it’s no surprise that the Pixel 7A is the most expensive, costing $499 directly from Google. It technically replaces the Pixel 6A, though both phones are on the market. The 6A has now been reduced to only $349, and it’s been seen for even less with store discounts.

Samsung sells the Galaxy A54 5G for $449 — slightly undercutting the Pixel 7A but costing a full $100 more than the Pixel 6A. Since its launch in March, though, we’ve seen it discounted further ($375 on BestBuy at the time of writing), so it’s always worth shopping around and seeing if you can save a few more bucks.

Display size, quality

At 6.4 inches, the Galaxy A54’s display is larger than the 6.1-inch displays of both the Pixel 6A and 7A. During general use, we also found that it appeared brighter, making it easier to read outdoors under sunshine. Though its resolution is marginally higher than that of the Pixel 7A, side by side there’s no noticeable difference in terms of sharpness.

The Pixel 6A has a standard screen refresh rate of 60Hz, and the 7A ups that to 90Hz. Frankly, it isn’t something you’d really notice during everyday use. The Galaxy A54 takes that further, providing “up to” 120Hz. Using both phones side by side and scrolling through menus simultaneously, I couldn’t see much difference. Maybe the more keen-eyed among you could, but even so, it shouldn’t be a reason to consider one over the other.

Processor performance

With its more recent Tensor G2 chip, you might expect the Pixel 7A to be the more powerful model, but on benchmark tests, it actually falls just behind the 6A. It’s a marginal difference, though, and during everyday use it isn’t something you’d ever notice. Both phones are swift, with smooth navigation, fast-loading apps, and gaming that’s handled perfectly well.

The A54 performed the worst on the tests, with quite disappointing scores on benchmarks, particularly against the more affordable 6A. Still, I found it to be capable of handling all my daily essentials, and it only really seemed to slow down when I was playing more graphically demanding games, like Genshin Impact, at higher quality settings.

Cameras

Both Pixels offer standard and superwide cameras, eschewing the telephoto zoom camera found on the pricier Pixel 7 Pro. The Pixel 7A beats the older 6A with higher resolution sensors, but overall image quality is comparable. Both phones capture shots with great dynamic range, accurate colors and plenty of details.

The Galaxy A54 adds a 5-megapixel macro camera to its main and ultrawide lenses, but beyond the odd novelty close-up shot of a bug, it’s pretty redundant. Its main camera has a generous 50 megapixel resolution, but its images are disappointing compared with both Pixel phones. Colors tend to look unnaturally saturated, with high-contrast skies sometimes resulting in blown-out highlights.

The main lens also tends to produce quite cold-looking images that dramatically shift to warmer tones when you switch to the ultrawide lens. Both Pixels, however, do a good job of maintaining color tones when switching between normal and wide views.

While the A54 5G is good for casual snappers just wanting vibrant shots of their kids at the beach, the Pixel 7A is worth a look if photography is more of a priority.

Battery

Though the Galaxy A54 packs a slightly more capacious battery than either of the Pixels, its slightly larger (and therefore more power hungry) display means its overall battery life is roughly on par with its rivals. On my YouTube streaming battery test, it drained slightly faster than the Pixels, but in overall use there’s little difference to worry about.

If you’re careful with your usage and avoid too much video streaming or gaming, then you should be able to get a full day out of any of the phones. All of them will need a full recharge every night.

Software, storage and extras

All three phones run the latest Android 13 software, and both Google and Samsung promise five years of security updates for their phones. As it was launched last year, this will mean that the Pixel 6A will be cut off from support in 2027 while both the Pixel 7A and Galaxy A54 will still be safe to use into 2028.

However, Samsung takes things a bit further, by offering an additional fourth generation of Android version updates over the Pixels, which is worth keeping in mind if you want to ensure you’re getting the most out of your phone for longer.

Watch this: Pixel 7A Review: A Step Forward for Google’s Budget Phone

07:15

I much prefer the Pixel’s Android 13 interface though. It’s generally neater and easier to use than Samsung’s One UI skin. This is especially true with the A54, as Samsung preloaded a lot of third-party apps that make it feel cluttered and bloated.

While all three phones have base storage of 128GB, the A54 has an ace up its sleeve; it’s one of the last remaining phones that offers expandable storage with microSD cards. It supports cards of up to 1TB, and with a 128GB card costing only $12, you can essentially double the storage of the phone, providing tons of room for photos, videos and apps.

Which should you buy?

Samsung’s Galaxy A54 5G might have longer software support and expandable storage, but it falls behind both Pixel phones in most other respects. The cameras, user interface, processor performance and battery life is better on the Pixel 6A and 7A and either of those phones is where my money would go.

Deciding between the two Pixels is trickier, however. The 6A is incredibly cheap yet still offers excellent performance for all your daily needs and packs a great camera. If you’re looking for the best phone that also leaves the most money in your bank, then the older 6A is the one for you.

But the Pixel 7A’s camera is better and it includes other more recent features like wireless charging, face unlock, and as the more recent phone, it’ll receive software updates for longer. But those are expensive extras, given its $150 bigger price tag over the 6A.

What about the Pixel 7?

The Pixel 7 is Google’s lower-end flagship that offers a similar set of specs to the Pixel 7A but costs $100 more. Though it’s a superb phone that earned a CNET Editors’ Choice Award, the arrival of the 7A has meant that it’s very difficult to justify spending the extra on the older model.

As CNET’s Lisa Eadicicco puts it: “After reviewing both phones, I’m convinced the Pixel 7A is the best value for most people.”

If you’re looking for a set of high-quality headphones, there are a lot of options out there. But if you don’t want to pay top dollar, don’t fret. Sony has a number of excellent headphones and earbuds — and right now Amazon has select models discounted by up to 29%, making it a little easier on your wallet. We don’t know how long this offer will last, so we recommend making your purchase sooner rather than later.

Sony’s best noise-canceling headphones are the WH-100XM5, which topped our best headphones for 2023 roundup. These over-ear wireless headphones deliver powerful sound and offer great voice-calling performance, as well as multipoint connection, making them an ideal pair of headphones for those working from home. You’ll get up to 30 hours per charge and noise canceling with automatic optimization that adjusts for your environment. Regularly $400, they’re marked down to $348 right now.

The WF-1000XM4 also made the cut as the best wireless earbuds Sony has to offer and won an Editors’ Choice Award in 2020. They remain an excellent set of wireless earbuds thanks to their top-notch noise-canceling and sound quality. And they’re a good choice for voice calling, too. You can expect about eight hours of battery life with noise canceling — and this pair offers multipoint connection as well. While this model usually lists for $280, Amazon has it available for just $198 currently — that’s a 29% discount.

However, if you’re a fan of compact earbuds, you may prefer the LinkBuds S, which also earned a spot on our best list. These earbuds may be more comfortable for some people because of how lightweight they are, plus they’re IPX4-rated splashproof and get up to six hours of battery life per charge. Normally they list for $200, but you can grab a pair for $148 right now.

There are plenty of other models in the sale worth checking out, so be sure to shop the entire selection at Amazon to find the right fit for your needs. And if you’re looking for a different brand, check out our roundup of the best headphone and earbuds deals happening now.

Apple’s next big product looks like it’ll cost $3,000, rest on your face and need to be tethered to a battery pack. Whatever this expected VR headset ends up being, it isn’t immediately clear what it’ll do or who it’s for. The Reality Pro headset, as it’s expected to be called when it’s likely unveiled at Apple’s WWDC developer conference on June 5, is Apple’s biggest new product in nearly a decade. It’s also totally different than anything Apple has ever made before.

VR headsets have been a standard consumer tech thing for years, and your family, or families you know, may already have one lying in a corner. They’re used for games, fitness, creative collaboration, even theater. Still, VR and AR have been outlier technologies, not deeply connected enough to the phones, tablets and laptops most of us use every day.

Apple could change that. And of course, don’t expect the word “metaverse” to be uttered even once. The metaverse became Meta’s buzzword to envision its future of AR and VR. Apple will have its own parallel, possibly unique, pitch.

A connection to everything?

I pair my Quest 2, from Meta, to my phone, and it gets my texts and notifications. I connect it to my Mac to cast extra monitors around my desk using an app called Immersed. But VR and AR don’t often feel deeply intertwined with the devices I use. They aren’t seamless in the way my watch feels when used with an iPhone, or AirPods feel when used with an iPad or Mac.

Apple needs this headset to bridge all of its devices, or at least make a good starting effort. Reports say the headset will run iPad apps on its built-in 4K displays, suggesting a common app ecosystem. It’s also possible that the Apple Watch could be a key peripheral, tracking fitness and also acting as a vibrating motion-control accessory.

VR is a self-contained experience, but mixed reality – which Apple’s headset should lean on heavily – uses pass-through cameras to blend virtual things with video of the real world. In Apple’s case, its own devices could act as spatially linked accessories, using keyboards and touchscreens and ways to show virtual screens springing from real ones.

Apple’s expected headset is supposed to be self-contained, a standalone device like the Quest 2 and Quest Pro. But that interconnectivity, and its position in Apple’s continuity-handoff connected ecosystem, is a big opportunity and a big question mark.

However, Apple does have a big AR head start: Its iOS ecosystem has supported AR for years, and the iPhone and iPad Pro already have depth-sensing lidar scanners that can map out rooms in ways that Apple’s headset should replicate. Apple could emphasize making its existing AR tools on other devices more usable and visible through a new interface.

Apple’s head of AR, Mike Rockwell – the person expected to be leading this new headset’s development – told me in a conversation about AR in 2020 that “AR has enormous potential to be helpful to folks in their lives across devices that exist today, and devices that may exist tomorrow, but we’ve got to make sure that it is successful. For us, the best way to do that is to enable our device ecosystem, so that it is a healthy and profitable place for people to invest their time and effort.”

How do we control it?

I’m less curious about the Apple headset display – which sounds extremely promising with a possible 4K resolution per eye and a Micro OLED display – and more focused on how Apple solves what we do with our hands.

Interfaces in VR and AR are very much a work in progress. VR has tended to lean on split game controllers for most inputs, with optional (and steadily improving) hand tracking that still isn’t perfected.

Apple isn’t expected to have any controller at all with its Reality Pro headset. Instead, it’ll likely use both eye tracking and hand tracking to create a more accurate and possibly streamlined style of interface that could make targeting intended actions feel faster. Eye tracking already works this way, sometimes, in headsets that use it: The PlayStation VR 2 has some games that use eye tracking for controlling menus.

Accessibility is a big question here. Apple’s design choices are often very accessibility-conscious, and VR and AR headsets often rely on eye movement or physical hand movements that aren’t always easy for everyone. Voice control is a possible option here, or maybe some Apple Watch-connected functions that improve gesture accuracy and offer some touch controls could be in the cards, too. I don’t know. Apple already added some gesture controls for accessibility purposes on the Apple Watch, so the door’s open.

A lot of hand gestures in VR feel complicated to me, and involve lots of movement. Can Apple make a gesture language that feels as intuitive and as easy as multitouch on iPhones and iPads? It’s a big hurdle.

Fitness focus

VR has already been a surprisingly effective fitness tool for years. Apple could address a whole bunch of opportunities that could open the landscape a lot further, though.

I’ve used Beat Saber and Supernatural on the Quest 2 for years as home exercise options, but the Quest 2 (and most VR headsets) aren’t designed with fitness in mind. Foam and silicone face pieces get sweaty, hardware can feel weirdly balanced, and no company has really spent targeted effort yet on making headgear that’s aimed at breathability and comfort like a piece of athletic equipment. There are plenty of third-party Quest accessories that help, but it still feels like an imperfect situation.

That’s Apple’s wheelhouse. After designing the Apple Watch, AirPods and, most recently, the Watch Ultra’s new straps, conceiving of materials and design that could feel better during workouts seems like an achievable goal. If the Reality Pro feels like a better piece of workout gear, it could inspire others to invest in better designs, too.

Apple should, and could, integrate the Apple Watch and fitness and health tracking into the headset’s functions. The Quest 2 can do this too to some degree, but most smartwatches and fitness trackers, like Fitbit, don’t have deep connections with VR headsets yet. They should, and again, introducing a clear wearable relationship between watch and headset feels like an overdue bridge.

Of all the things I’m trying to imagine Apple positioning an expensive headset to be in people’s lives, a fitness device keeps coming to mind as a much more likely proposition than a gaming gadget. Not that many people own gym equipment, or have space for it. Could headsets fill that role? I think they could. For me, they already do, sometimes.

Will Apple just focus on making it a great wearable display?

I’m starting to wonder if maybe Apple’s first goal with Reality Pro is just to nail a great audio/video experience. I’ve thought of VR/AR glasses as eventually needing to be “earbuds for your eyes,” as easy to use and as good as headphones are now. VR and AR headsets I’ve used all far short of being perfect displays, with the exception of the highly expensive Varjo XR-3. Could Apple achieve making the Reality Pro a headset that looks and sounds good enough to truly want to watch movies in?

Some reports that the Apple headset runs iPad apps, and that perhaps the iPad Pro with its lidar/camera array is in fact the “developer kit” for the headset, make me wonder if the headset will feel like a wearable extension of iOS rather than a whole new experience.

What about my glasses?

VR and AR headsets aren’t making it easy for me to live with my own eyewear. Some hardware fits right over my own chunky glasses, and some doesn’t. As headsets get smaller, a lot of them are trying to add vision-adjustment diopters right into the hardware – like the Vive XR Elite – or add optional prescription inserts.

Maybe someday we’ll have AR glasses that double as our own everyday glasses, and Apple can morph into a Warby Parker optical shop for its retail glasses fittings. In the meantime, these sometimes-on headsets also need to work without being annoying. Am I going to have to order prescription lenses? And how? And will they fit my needs? It’s a big responsibility for VR/AR manufacturers, and I’ve found that some of the insert options don’t meet my heavily near-sighted needs.

What are the killer apps?

Finally, of course, I’m curious about how this headset is defined. The Quest 2 is a game console with benefits. The Quest Pro was aimed at work. The PlayStation VR 2 is a PS5 extension.

The iPhone was a browser, an iPod, and an email device at first. The iPad wanted to be an easy way for users to read and look at the web. The Apple Watch was a fitness device, iPod, and wrist-communicator. What will Version One of the Apple Mixed Reality Headset be positioned as?

Apple did pepper a ton of extras into the Apple Watch at first, almost to test the waters with possibilities: a camera remote, a virtual way to send love taps and scribbles, voice memos. Reports of an avatar-based FaceTime, multiscreen immersive sports, and maybe 3D immersive versions of Apple’s already 3D-enabled Maps are clear starts. Apple’s collaborative Freeform app could be pitched as a mixed reality workplace, and movies could be watched in a virtual theater, in a way that VR headsets have enabled for years (but maybe here with an even better display and audio). AR-enabled iPhone and iPad home improvement apps, 3D scanning apps, and games could be ported over, leaning on similar lidar-scanning AR functions in-headset. Apple fitness workouts, clearly, could be big. Gaming? With Arcade, or some early partners, sure.

Will any of these be enough? Will Apple define a territory that right now has had a hard time defining itself beyond gaming? This first headset may not be the one most people buy, but it could be the one that tries to map out some clear directions for development beyond gaming. With Samsung and Google’s headset on the horizon, and possibly a lot more after that, these devices will start to reinvent themselves as they become more phone-connected and portable. Apple could have an early chance at shaping that narrative… or, if it doesn’t, others will get a chance after Apple. We’ll likely know more, or at least get an early glimpse, at WWDC.

Hulu is taking 74% off the cost of its subscription for three months for new and returning subscribers, dropping the price down to just $2 per month. The limited-time deal was launched to coincide with National Streaming Day and is slated to end on May 27, so it won’t be long before this discount disappears.

Hulu with ads normally costs $8 per month, so getting three months for less than the regular cost of one is a killer deal. If you’re not new to Hulu, you’re still eligible for this deal if your subscription lapsed over a month ago. You can also choose to add on Disney Plus with ads for $2 extra per month.

We’re big fans of Hulu’s variety, and it landed a spot on our list of the best streaming services for that reason. The service offers a huge library of familiar shows from networks like ABC, NBC and FX as well as a growing roster of original content like The Handmaid’s Tale, Only Murders in the Building and How I Met Your Father. The ad-supported plans will have commercials within the content you’re watching, but at just $2 per month it’s hard to be too bothered by that and it gives you the chance to sample Hulu’s extensive catalog without breaking the bank. And you could always move to the ad-free plan after the promotional period ends if you find that you want to stick with the service.

The $2 per month deal expires soon, so you don’t have long left to make the most of it. Note that this subscription will auto-renew at $8 per month if you don’t cancel before your three months are up.

Google has launched Search Generative Experience, or SGE, an experimental version of Search that integrates artificial intelligence answers directly into results, the company said in a blog post on Thursday.

Unlike a normal Google Search, which brings up a list of blue links, SGE uses AI to answer your questions right on the Google Search webpage. After entering a query in Google Search, a green or blue box will expand with a novel answer generated by Google’s large language model, like the one powering OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Google pulls this information from websites and links to sources used when generating an answer. It’s also possible to ask follow-up questions in SGE to get more precise results.

At the moment, SGE isn’t open to the public and requires you to sign up to Google’s Search Labs. To join, click the link here. Search Labs is currently available only to a limited number people in the US and in English only, though you can join the waitlist. Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

With the launch of ChatGPT late last year, an AI chatbot that could answer almost any question with a unique answer, companies have been adding generative AI features to their products amid increased public interest. Google unveiled Bard earlier this year, an AI chatbot similar to ChatGPT. Microsoft followed up by adding ChatGPT into Bing directly, including an AI image generator powered by Dall-E, also by OpenAI. AI chatbots are powered by a large language model, or LLM, a technology that uses a massive set of text data to write sentences that mimic human language. The model essentially aims to figure out what the next best word should be when generating sentences, a process that’s been described as “autocomplete on steroids.”

AI was also a core focus earlier this month at Google I/O, the search giant’s annual developers conference, with the term being said more than 140 times during the two-hour presentation. During I/O, Cathy Edwards, vice president of engineering at Google, said that with a standard Google Search, people have to break up complex queries into multiple questions, sift through websites for information and formulate the answer in their heads. With SGE, the AI can do all of that for you.

How to join the Google Search Labs waitlist

Here’s how to join the waitlist for Search Labs so you can be among the first to test Google’s SGE:

1. Open the Chrome browser on a computer.
2. Sign into you Google account.
3. Open a new tab in your browser.
4. At the top right, there will be a Labs icon (of a beaker) if Labs is available to you.
5. If the Labs icon is there, click it and then click Join Waitlist.

You’ll get an email when Labs becomes available.

SGE is part of Search Labs and includes experimental features such as Code Tips, which gives coding suggestions directly in Search, and Add to Sheets, a feature that can automatically bring in information found in Search into Google Sheets.

If you’re able to get into SGE now, Google requires you to agree to its privacy notice and asks you not to include sensitive or confidential personal information that “can be used to identify you or others in your interactions with SGE features.” This is because during this trial run, some data will be analyzed by human reviewers, although the data will be “stored in a manner that is not associated with your Google account.” It’s possible to delete interactions via the My Activity page.

Google also warns of the follies of generative AI and that accuracy may vary. This is likely referring to “hallucinations,” a problem found with generative AI where it can confidently say something is accurate when it isn’t. Google suggests you not rely on generative AI for medical, legal, financial or other professional services.

Editors’ note: CNET is using an AI engine to create some personal finance explainers that are edited and fact-checked by our editors. For more, see this post.SGE can be accessed via the Chome desktop web browser or the Android and iOS Google apps. a large language model