ResidentialBusiness

Sam Altman’s concessions to win approval from US officials expose his company to litigation and non-profit oversightView the full article

The 30-year rate dropped just 0.2 percentage points, as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's recent comments caused Treasury yields to rise. View the full article

Last year Canva reworked its user experience and tools in a full-frontal attack on the productivity and enterprise markets now dominated by Microsoft Office and Google Workspace. Now the Australian company is going for Adobe’s jugular. Affinity—the British company Canva bought in 2024—is out with a new app that aims to sink Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign with a simple proposal: If you are a professional designer, here’s an integrated photo editing, vector illustration, and page layout studio seamlessly integrated into a single application, with a feature set comparable to Adobe’s apps and a fully customizable UI. For free. You know, free free. “Free forever,” as Canva’s cofounder and chief product officer Cameron Adams tells me in a video interview. Free as in not paying a single dime for eternity (allegedly) instead of the up to $70 per month that Adobe charges for its full Creative Cloud subscription. If the new Affinity lives up to its promise—and, from what I’ve seen, it may actually do that and then some—it will be a hard thing to ignore for any Adobe Creative Cloud user, even if they are fully invested in the company’s apps.​ Cameron Adams When Canva bought Affinity, it kept British company independent and injected the capital needed to revamp the Affinity suit of apps into a bona fide Adobe competitor. As Adams tells me, the move was born from a radical rethinking of the entire creative world. “We’re really viewing the entire design ecosystem as one big entity,” he says. “It’s not about separation anymore. It’s not about professionals on one side, nonprofessionals on the other. It’s really about your entire team working together.” The company also saw an opportunity in the feedback they were getting from the creative community, who Adams says are fed up with “pricing model increases, with lack of transparency, just the feeling they weren’t being listened to, and a lack of innovation in the tools that they’ve been using for a very long time.” Break the workflow walls For Affinity CEO Ashley Hewson, this launch fulfills a vision his team has had for a long time: to finally bring the separate apps of Affinity Designer, Photo, and Publisher into one consolidated experience. “That’s what we’ve been building— an entirely new app,” he says. Simply called Affinity, it organizes its immense power into dedicated “studios”—Vector, Pixel, and Layout—that you can switch between instantly within the same window, using a button bar switch on the top left corner of the UI. This is similar to other apps like DaVinci Resolve, which moves from edit to color correction, automagically morphing the interface to show you the tools you need at each stage without having to move to a new app, import a file, save, and move back to the previous tool. Ash Hewson With Affinity, the canvas, the layers, and everything else stays as you switch from bitmap to vector to layout and back. This isn’t just about convenience; it’s about eliminating the maddening workflow interruptions that kill creativity. “Previously, you’d have to kind of change app to do some more advanced vector sort of design work, and that would always mean kind of exporting this, bring it into a different app,” Hewson explains. “Whereas now, I can just go to the Vector Studio if I want to do any of that work.” Thanks to full GPU acceleration, everything is live and nondestructive, from applying a Gaussian blur to a vector object to painting a pixel-based mask on a filter effect. As Hewson demonstrated for me, you can adjust a gradient, warp text, or scrub through your entire edit history with zero lag. Even with thousands of layers, he claims. “I keep saying it, but it’s kind of very important because, obviously, it’s kind of what the competitors don’t do,” he says with a hint of pride.​ Custom interface In the new Affinity, you can customize the UI in any way you want. Hewson showed me how users can create their own “perfect studio,” a custom workspace that mixes and matches tools from any of the core disciplines. “Let’s say your workflow often includes raster brushes, vector tools, maybe even some layout tools as well,” Hewson says. “What you can do is actually just create your own studio.” This is a level of personalization that goes far beyond rearranging a few panels. You can build a lean UI for logo design, a robust one for photo compositing, and another for publication layout. These custom studios can then be saved and shared, creating a new way for teams to standardize workflows. It’s an appealing proposal, given that every designer works differently. It’s also a good solution against the one-size-fits-all bloat that has plagued professional creative software for years. The new Affinity gives you the power to build the exact tool you need, and hide the rest.​ ‘Craft to scale’ So, how does a free professional tool make business sense for Canva? Adams explains it to me with a simple mantra: “craft and scale.” The high-end, pixel-perfect “craft” happens in Affinity Studio. The “scale”—where that craft is used to generate massive amounts of content—happens in Canva. By making the craft tool free, Canva is betting it can grow the entire design ecosystem.​ The strategy is to build a frictionless bridge between these two worlds. For enterprise teams, this is the endgame. “The high-end designers or the creative team within an enterprise [will be] using Affinity to create all of their brand assets, their templates,” Hewson explains. “But then they upload all of those to Canva seamlessly so the rest of the teams within the business, who are not skilled designers, can scale on that.”​ The AI question Hewson says that unlike Adobe’s tools, the new Affinity remains a pure, unadulterated craft tool with no generative AI baked in except for enhancing existing tools like image scaling, which runs on-device.​ However, for those who want to edit with AI, that’s available through a new dedicated “Canva AI Studio” panel in the app. This is an optional, subscription-based layer. As he explains, you need a Canva Premium plan, and the AI features use the same credit pool as your main Canva account. Crucially, the optionality respects the designers who resent paying for AI they don’t want or trust. You can run the entire free experience without ever touching it (or just take it out of the UI altogether). The generative features, like Generative Fill, run on cloud servers using models from Leonardo, an AI company Canva acquired in 2024. It’s a good approach that runs counter to Adobe’s all-in-on-AI strategy. For professionals who are fed up with Adobe force feeding them generative AI in their subscriptions, Canva’s opt-in assistant option will be appealing. Combined with a good toolset (still have to test this one) and the zero price tag, Canva may be launching a philosophical and strategic H-bomb at one of its biggest competitors. If it delivers, the creative world is about to feel the shockwave that may finally bust Adobe’s decades-old foundations. View the full article

Generative AI ranges from gimmicky to powerful, depending on its context. But the biggest shortcoming is that whatever you make isn’t really all that editable— you typically have to juggle several apps to get the outcome you want. Now, a new update to Canva, called Ask @Canva, makes just about everything you’re working on editable by AI with a tap and a request. Ask @Canva is built upon Canva’s first foundational model—an AI model it trained in-house specifically for its own purposes. Instead of generating static designs, it produces new projects as full, editable design templates. That means when Canva uses AI to generate your slide deck or social post, all of the text and photos are discreetly editable with the same basic interface Canva has offered for years. Typography is pulled from its library to match the tone of your work. Images and illustrations are generated by default, but swappable with your own. At the core of all of Canva’s UX is invisible AI arranging and rearranging your work with aesthetic balance. But now, Canva is putting generative AI within close reach on every element in your work. Think of Ask @Canva as a design intern, or perhaps “save me!” button, that you can request to redesign or rewrite any element on the page—and even critique your entire project. How Ask @Canva works The feature follows Canva’s aggressive adoption of generative AI into its UX. In 2023, Canva was the first in its peer group to bring barebones generative AI into its app. Then in 2024, it introduced Magic Studio, a suite of AI tools that solved practical problems for users (like extending an image or creating a simple animation). Earlier this year, it introduced the Visual Suite 2.0—its biggest front end redesign in 13 years, which basically consolidates a lot of the app and its varying templates within a single window, so you could completely rebuild your project, switching it from a slide deck to a website, all while remaining within your main canvas in the Canva app. With its new model, Canva is repositioning its app as a “creative operating system” that uses AI to bind all media together. All of Canva’s “just make it for me” AI tools should improve alongside the update. There is one big difference, however, in terms of Canva’s new approach to AI beyond mere improvements to the model: Now, when you select anything on a page—a block of text, an image, a background color—a tooltip pops up with an option to “Ask @Canva.” Tap it, and you can simply ask the software to do whatever you’d like it to do to the asset in plain language—as if you’re talking to a colleague, but the colleague is a robot. “Ask Canva is part of our commenting . . . system, and it now lets you interact with Canva like it’s a collaborator,” explains Cameron Adams, cofounder and chief product officer at Canva. What makes Ask @Canva so powerful is that it understands both the element you’re highlighting and its context within the greater project you’re editing. So you might ask Canva to change an image’s illustration style to better match others on the page (a method traditionally known as style transfer). In a demo, Adams successfully asks the system to make a slice of pizza “float in space.” These AI edits all happen in situ. That said, you can also use Ask @Canva a step zoomed out, requesting its advice for how you should change your design. I’m amused when Adams does this, and Ask @Canva compliments his use of a purple-blue gradient (which is so on-brand for Canva I can’t tell if the AI understands its brand standards or if it’s algorithmic bias). But the AI also (astutely) calls out an unflattering contrast between the left and right sides of the page. It was the same critique I had waiting on my tongue. Building AI into every layer of Canva The human versus automated balance that Canva is working toward with AI has been interesting to track. You can now start any project by typing what you want into a Google Search-esque bar. Its AI will now ask you follow ups, too—about the topic and tone of your project—so that its first draft of whatever you want to create is as close to your vision as possible. But Adams recognizes a lot of its customers still don’t do that. They prefer to work from Canva’s template library and just see a sample that resonates. With Ask @Canva, the company is likely appealing to these customers, too, by offering AI at a deeper layer of the project. Here, AI is not the tool used to start a project creatively from the top, but instead it’s entrenched deeply inside the interface to help solve a problem for which there may be no other ready tool. “Every person is different, and it’s been the same [story] in software development for decades,” says Adams. “You’ve always needed to give people different approaches to the same problem, because some people are visual thinkers. Some people have no idea what they want on the page.” For now, the great unifier of AI within Canva seems to be Ask @Canva: a tool hiding a click away for when everything else might fail. Yes, it’s another iteration of the prompt. But now, it’s not some grand orchestrator of your vision. Instead, it’s more like an emergency button available all the time, on every asset. View the full article

The obesity rate in the U.S. is continuing its downward trend. The news comes three years after obesity rates hit a record high. In 2022, almost four out of 10 (39.9%) of Americans met the threshold for the classification, however, the number first began to shrink in 2023. Now, the rate of obesity is now down to 37%, according to new data from Gallup. The new findings are based on data from three nationally representative surveys of 16,946 U.S. adults. And while the numbers don’t seem massively significant, the report found that those three percentage points add up to around 7.6 million Americans who no longer meet the criteria for being obese. According to the newly released data, the numbers coincide with a growing number of Americans who have begun relying on GLP-1 medications, like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound, for weight loss. “The percentage of adults who report taking this class of medicine specifically for weight loss has increased to 12.4%, compared with 5.8% in February 2024 when Gallup first measured it,” the report explains. The report also notes that far more women are taking the drugs than men (15.2% and 9.7%, respectively), which helps explain why women’s obesity rates have dropped off more abruptly. Likewise, the largest reduction came from 40 to 49-year-olds and 50 to 64-year-olds, which, uncoincidently, are also the groups who most use GLP-1s for weight loss. The news comes as reliance on GLP-1s is continuing to surge. On Thursday, Eli Lilly, the maker of weight loss drug Zepbound and diabetes drug Mounjaro, topped estimates for the third quarter, as demand for weight loss drugs continues to escalate. Zepbound posted $3.59 billion in revenue—up a hefty 184% from the year-earlier period. The impressive numbers come shortly after an experimental pill from Eli Lilly outperformed Novo Nordisk’s oral semaglutide. The pill, orforglipron, helped patients lose more weight and control their blood sugar better than Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy. “Lilly delivered another strong quarter, with 54% revenue growth year-over-year driven by continued demand for our incretin portfolio,” David A. Ricks, Lilly chair and CEO, said in an October 30 press release. “We advanced orforglipron through four additional Phase 3 trials, enabling global obesity submissions by year-end, and we achieved U.S. FDA approval of Inluriyo (imlunestrant)—marking key progress across our pipeline.” And, as the market for weight loss drugs grows, drug companies are battling it out for a competitive edge. On Thursday, Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk which makes Ozempic and Wegovy, made an aggressive bid on U.S. obesity biotech firm Metsera in an effort to dominate the weight loss drug market. Novo Nordisk bid $8.5 billion, topping Pfizer’s $7.3 billion bid. Interestingly, while obesity rates have taken a major dive, diabetes diagnoses have actually gone up—reaching a record high of 13.8%, per the recent data. “As diabetes is a lifetime disease, short-term reductions in the obesity rate would not be expected to curtail the percentage of Americans who have been diagnosed with it,” the research explains. View the full article

Social media group sheds $200bn in market value as Mark Zuckerberg’s investment plans spook investorsView the full article

U.S. President Donald The President hailed a meeting with China’s Xi Jinping as “amazing” and “12” on a 10-point scale, but the agreement the two leaders reached appears to be no more than a fragile truce in a trade war with root causes still unresolved. The framework announced on Thursday—that includes China resuming soybean purchases, suspending its rare earths export curbs for a year, and the U.S. lowering tariffs on China by 10%—broadly rewinds ties to the status that existed before The President’s “Liberation Day” offensive triggered tit-for-tat escalation. But the deal exposes the fundamental mismatch between what Washington wants and what Beijing is willing to offer. Absent from the talks were the big issues cited by The President as he launched his tariffs in April—China’s industrial policies, manufacturing over-capacity, and its export-led growth model. “So what are we talking about? We are talking about de-escalation of the measures that both sides have taken since the start of the The President administration in this kind of escalating trade war,” said Emily Kilcrease, director at the Center for a New American Security. The outcome underscores the robustness of Xi’s new approach to dealing with the U.S., which relies on a broad toolbox of measures like export controls, swiftly deployed in response to each move by the The President administration. An official briefed on the deliberations said the Chinese had a realistic set of expectations for this encounter—and those did not include a fundamental reset of two-way ties. They were nonetheless happy with The President’s tone coming in and his framing of the meeting as a “G2”, said the official, who declined to be named or further identified because he was not authorised to speak to the media. China sees this as a stepping stone to a bigger meeting where they can stabilize the relationship, the official added. ‘World-class leaders’ Given the long-simmering tensions, the very fact that both leaders had a warm meeting—and agreed to two follow-up visits next year—offers rattled multinational corporations caught in the middle a much needed reprieve, say experts. Xi opened the talks, which took place ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, by saying that “China’s development and rejuvenation are not incompatible with President The President’s goal of ‘Making America Great Again’.” He added that he was willing to work with The President to “lay a solid foundation for China-U.S. relations and create a favourable environment for the development of both nations.” The President emerged from the encounter glowing, chit-chatting and leaning into Xi as both left the venue, later calling him the “great leader of a great country,” and saying that this is how two global superpowers should deal with one another. “When we have this limited time-frame, the deal and the deal-making structure both function as an engagement mechanism between the two countries, so they can address the issues properly and adjust their mutual interests down the road to make sure people keep talking to each other,” said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at research consultancy Plenum. The President said that tariffs on Chinese imports would be cut to 47% from around 57% by halving the rate of levies related to trade in fentanyl precursor chemicals to 10% from 20%. Xi will work “very hard to stop the flow” of the chemicals used for the production of the deadly opioid that is the leading cause of American overdose deaths, The President said, acknowledging that the issue was complex. The tariff was reduced “because I believe they are really taking strong action,” he added. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasised that The President and Xi were “world-class leaders” in a Monday call with his U.S. counterpart Marco Rubio. “Their long-term engagement and mutual respect have become the most valuable strategic asset in U.S.-China relations,” he told his American counterpart, in unusually effusive language for a Chinese diplomat. ‘Difficult situation’ The deal buys both sides some breathing room: The President gets a win before his planned visit to Beijing in April, Xi gets relief from elevated U.S. tariffs that have put pressure on Chinese manufacturers. But even this tactical detente is incomplete. China’s latest rare earths licensing curbs are delayed, not dismantled, but earlier restrictions on the critical minerals that have upended global trade remain, leaving U.S. factories facing ongoing uncertainty in sourcing critical materials. “I think that what we’ve seen this year has been a more or less total vindication of China’s strategy of never striking first but always striking back,” Joe Mazur, geopolitics analyst at Trivium China, a consultancy. “It’s very clear that rare earths is the primary piece of leverage, the ace in the hole that China is able to wield over the U.S.—it doesn’t look like the U.S. has any comparable leverage or any way of breaking the stranglehold for the time being.” The agreement also highlights how dramatically the relationship between the world’s two biggest economies has deteriorated since The President’s first term, when negotiators produced a comprehensive 96-page document covering intellectual property, banking, and agriculture. This time around, the talks were far less intensive and both sides only offered relatively brief readouts that mostly focused on holding back threats made in the run-up to the talks. Da Wei, the director of Tsinghua University’s Centre for International Security and Strategy, warned that repeated escalations could exhaust Xi and The President’s personal rapport. “If the escalation of tensions happens many times, probably the patience and trust between the two leaders at a personal level will run out,” he said. “Then we will have a very difficult situation.” —Trevor Hunnicutt, Laurie Chen, and Mei Mei Chu, Reuters View the full article

Starbucks released its fourth-quarter earnings on Wednesday, October 30, finally providing an official figure for its recent wave of store closings. The Seattle-based coffee chain shuttered a total of 627 locations worldwide over the three months, ending up with a net closure of 107 stores. More than 90% of impacted locations were in North America, Starbucks said. In the United States, 520 stores were shuttered as part of the company’s turnaround efforts, Starbucks disclosed in an earnings release. Starbucks now runs 40,990 stores globally and 16,864 in the United States. Estimates of store closures varied widely In September, Starbucks announced the shuttering of stores in North America, but it didn’t identify specific locations or an exact figure. Working with limited information, news outlets made a number of different estimates at the time, ranging from around 100 closures to over 400. The number disclosed by Starbucks this week is above even many of the higher-end estimates. Moderators of the subreddit r/Starbucks, meanwhile, had created a crowdsourced Google Doc for confirmed closures. When reached by Fast Company for comment on store closure locations, a Starbucks representative said the company does “not have that to share.” The representative pointed to a September blog post from CEO Brian Niccols and said, “The best place for up-to-date hours of operation for our coffeehouses in the Starbucks app.” All part of the plan The significant number of store closures came as part of the company’s “Back to Starbucks” restructuring plan, which Niccols has been championing as key to growing the coffee chain’s foot traffic. In July’s third-quarter earnings report, Starbucks said that the plan “focuses on exceptional service, simplified routines, and deeper customer connections.” For Starbucks, that means expanding the assistant manager role across U.S. stores, hiring 90% of retail workers internally, and a lot more seating. Yes, Starbucks wants to move away from machines and mobile orders to create a warm, inviting in-store experience. According to Niccol, it’s working. “We’re a year into our ‘Back to Starbucks’ strategy, and it’s clear that our turnaround is taking hold,” he said in a statement. “Our return to global comp growth and the momentum we’re building give me confidence we’re on the right path to deliver the very best of Starbucks for our customers, partners and shareholders.” U.S. stores fell 2% on comparable sales year-over-year (YOY) in quarter three, while this quarter saw comparable sales remain the same YOY. Shares of Starbucks Corporation (Nasdaq: SBUX) were up around 1.17% in early trading on Thursday. The stock is down roughly 7.62% year to date. View the full article

For the past 30 years, the web browser has been the primary way humans navigate the internet. It makes sense, then, that as artificial intelligence becomes more humanlike in its capabilities, it would use the same tool. That’s basically the idea behind AI-powered browsers, which are definitely having an “it” moment now that OpenAI has launched Atlas, its own web browser that incorporates ChatGPT as an ever-present helper. Atlas follows Perplexity’s Comet, which arrived in the summer to quickly capture the imagination of what an AI browser could do. In both cases, the user can, at any time, call up an AI assistant (aka agent), able to perform multistep tasks—such as navigating to a grocery retailer and filling an online shopping cart with ingredients for a recipe—from a simple command. Atlas vs. Comet: Who has the smarter browser? Who has the better experience? Based on features, the clear winner is Comet, which boasts Chrome-like functionality, supporting multiple user profiles, extensions, and more buttons for specific, fast AI-powered actions, such as instant summarization of web pages. However, because ChatGPT is the go-to AI that over 800 million people now use, that context represents a huge advantage. When you call up the chatbot in Atlas, you can simply point to the relevant conversation, plus it will remember aspects of your browsing experience to better help you. The Atlas-vs.-Comet fight may be moot, though, since Google Chrome is the incumbent browser for most people (it has 74% market share worldwide), and it has AI features, too. Chrome’s large user base, however, also means Google can’t move as fast: Since the whole idea of AI agents taking control of your browser to perform tasks is fraught with security concerns, Google’s Gemini assistant in Chrome is relatively feeble; if you ask it to, say, shop for you on Amazon, it’ll give you the digital equivalent of a shrug. So Chrome’s continued dominance in the AI era isn’t assured. But the question of who will win the AI browser war doesn’t matter so much as whether AI browsing will take off at all. I’ve been using Comet heavily for a few months, and although I find the idea of an agent doing all my tedious internet tasks compelling, I’ve found the actual set of things it can do to be quite narrow. Generally, the task needs to be something that doesn’t require a lot of specialized context (since the AI can’t read your mind) or complex prompting (since spending several minutes crafting a prompt is time you could use to just do the task yourself). Nonetheless, OpenAI imagines a future where most of the activity online is done via AI agents in browsers like Atlas. In its announcement, it says, “This launch marks a step toward a future where most web use happens through agentic systems—where you can delegate the routine and stay focused on what matters most.” OpenAI could be right. Those narrow use cases for agentic browsing could be expanded greatly with more elegant and comprehensive merging of personal context and the browsing experience. If the agent understands the entire background of what you’re doing—the why—and gets better at navigating the web (as it inevitably will), AI browsing might even burst through to the mainstream. What agentic browsing means for publishers If that happens, it would have huge implications for the media. Because not only will people get a lot of their information through the lens of their preferred AI agent, the tasks performed on their behalf will be informed by content seen through that same lens. For example, an agent told to search for a “stylish suit” would need to essentially Google what’s in style, then use that information to complete the task. No human eyeballs ever look at the content it uses to research what’s in style, but getting the right information is a crucial part of the agent performing the task well. How agents access that information, and what they do with it, are important questions to answer in building the framework of how all this works. The whole area of how AI systems access information is of course hotly contested, generating several lawsuits, but there is some consensus. OpenAI made clear in the launch announcement that it would not use Atlas as a “backdoor” to train on content that was otherwise blocked from its training bot. However, access for the agent itself is controversial. AI companies maintain that agents are proxies for users, and should, in many cases, be allowed to bypass bot controls to access content and services that a human could access. Others don’t see it that way—that because an agent is a robot, with no human attention to cater to, it should not be treated as human, and sites should have the option to block agents specifically. This is essentially the core of what Perplexity and Cloudflare were arguing about this summer. With the release of Atlas, AI browsing can only accelerate, and answering these questions will become more urgent. Media strategy depends on knowing who your audience is, understanding how they access your content, and having reliable ways of monetizing that behavior. Right now none of those components are well defined for a future where the primary users of the internet are browser agents. It’s not just a question of whether sites should be able to block agents specifically. That’s just a building block in creating a system where an agent can work autonomously to either pay or register to access certain content, or prove it has a license to do so. For example, if a subscriber to Fast Company asks their agent to do a task, and in the course of that task needs information the publication can provide, access should be seamless and, importantly, measurable. But if you don’t have a subscription, your agent will be blocked and need to go elsewhere—regardless of whether the actual article is paywalled for humans. The real power of this idea is in the aggregate, where licensing deals carry over to users of the AI. In the case of OpenAI, which has licensed content from several media companies, that could theoretically carry over to its agents. And since agent activity is measurable, there could theoretically be a way for publications to reach those AI users and turn them into more engaged audience members. It could all be done anonymously, through the AI provider, based on user activity. When your audience isn’t human It’s questionable whether most web browsing in the future will be done by bots, but regardless of the proportion, it seems likely that agentic activity on the web will expand significantly, as security concerns are slowly resolved. That means publishers will need to adapt to a world where bots acting on behalf of users become a big part of their audience, and deciding what those agents see and how much they will pay will be critical. The fundamental question in front of us now, however, is figuring out who decides: the people making the content or the people making the agents. View the full article

In the beginning, WhatsApp users could not protect their chat backups with encryption—while all communications were encrypted end-to-end, backups weren't afforded the same protection. Since 2021, however, WhatsApp has offered two ways for users to encrypt these backups: a standard password, or a 64-digit encryption key. There are security issues with both of these methods. Passwords can be secure, but let's be real, many of us use very simple passwords that are easy to remember, and, in some cases, we even repeat passwords from account to account to make things easier on our brains. If your password for WhatsApp backups is the same password you use for your email, and the latter gets leaked, hackers can easily break into your WhatsApp backups. Not good. (Side note: Please use a strong and unique password for all of your accounts.) The 64-digit encryption key, on the other hand, is extremely secure. It would take a computer a long time to crack (perhaps a few lifetimes) and would be essentially impossible for a human to guess. But it's 64 characters long. You're not going to remember it, and if you don't store it somewhere safe and secure, you could lose track of it—and with it, access to your encrypted chat backups. Again, not good. On Thursday, however, WhatsApp announced it is adding a new authentication method to protect your encrypted backups, and a big improvement over the existing two options: passkeys. If you choose to encrypt your chat backups with a passkey, you'll be able to decrypt them the same way you unlock your device, such as with your fingerprint, face scan, or device passcode. Passkeys offer the best of both passwords and two-factor authentication (2FA). The "key" is stored on-device or associated with your account, so there's no passphrase to remember, write down, or store in a password manager. That means you don't need to worry about it landing in a hacker's hands due to a data leak. The only way to access the passkey is to authenticate yourself with a connected and trusted device, such as your smartphone. Without your fingerprint, face scan, or passcode, no one is getting into your encrypted backups. How to check if you have passkey supportWhatsApp says it is gradually rolling out this passkey support "over the coming weeks and months." To check if your account supports it, head to Settings > Chats > Chat backup > End-to-end encrypted backup. View the full article

Salesforce Ventures, a subsidiary of the tech giant Salesforce, is making significant strides in the rapidly evolving realm of artificial intelligence (AI) with its AI fund, now totaling over $850 million in deployed investments. Small business owners should pay close attention to these developments, as the investment in AI is poised to redefine the competitive landscape and create numerous opportunities for innovation. This move follows Salesforce’s impressive expansion of its AI fund to $1 billion last year and positions its portfolio in line with leading innovators in the AI sector. With investments in 35 AI-first companies, including names like Anthropic and Cohere, Salesforce Ventures has built a collective valuation of over $270 billion within its portfolio. This reflects a robust commitment to discovering and backing companies that are not only pioneering technologies but also shaping the future of enterprise operations. Paul Drews, Managing Partner at Salesforce Ventures, observed, “After 15 years of investing in enterprise technology, we’ve seen how monumental platform shifts create new market leaders. We believe AI is the most profound platform shift of our time.” His insights emphasize a vital takeaway: AI is no longer just a tool for large corporations; it’s transforming industries that small businesses inhabit. For small business owners, this development represents a unique opportunity. The ongoing focus from Salesforce Ventures on securing trustworthy AI enables startups and smaller firms to tap into cutting-edge technology, which could allow them to streamline operations, enhance customer experiences, and unlock new revenue streams. Moreover, Salesforce Ventures has demonstrated a founder-first approach, committing to teams beyond just financial backing. By offering valuable market insights and a powerful global network, they provide a framework that small businesses can leverage as they embrace innovative technologies. Krishna Rao, CFO of Anthropic, shared this sentiment, stating, “Salesforce Ventures has been an important partner…They have provided valuable customer insights and helped Anthropic scale faster.” The latest push towards integrating AI into mainstream enterprise operations signals a shift from mere experimentation to practical applications. Leaders in AI are now focusing on creating solutions that address real-world challenges, particularly in automating processes and improving efficiency. This trend could offer small business owners numerous possibilities—from chatbot services that enhance customer service to AI-driven analytics that inform marketing strategies. However, small business owners should also be aware of potential challenges as they navigate this new landscape. While integrating AI can lead to significant efficiencies, the upfront costs and complexity of these technologies might pose barriers. Finding the right tools that match their specific needs and budget could require careful consideration. Additionally, as AI becomes a fixture in business operations, the demand for skilled employees who can manage and optimize these technologies may rise, potentially leading to labor shortages in the tech-savvy job market. Salesforce Ventures is not only investing in existing players but is also actively seeking emerging companies in the field. This relentless search underscores the message that for small businesses, staying ahead of trends—be it in automation or AI—could be the key to sustainable growth. John Somorjai, President of Salesforce Ventures, asserted, “Enterprises are moving beyond experimentation to full-scale production with AI…The companies that will win aren’t just building better models; they’re building more resilient businesses around transformative AI capabilities.” For small business owners looking to capitalize on these trends, engaging with the evolving AI ecosystem could be transformative. From leveraging existing AI tools to considering partnerships with innovative startups, there is a landscape rich with options for those willing to adapt. Salesforce Ventures aims to be a long-term partner for those navigating the AI revolution, lending both financial support and market insights. For businesses keen on understanding how to integrate AI effectively, tapping into resources like Salesforce’s global network could prove invaluable. As this new era unfolds, small business owners must remain vigilant and proactive. Embracing AI not only offers a path to operational resilience but also positions businesses to be competitive players in a dynamic market being reshaped by technology. For more information on this initiative, you can read the original press release. Image via Envanto This article, "Salesforce Ventures Accelerates AI Investments, Backing 35 Innovators" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Salesforce Ventures, a subsidiary of the tech giant Salesforce, is making significant strides in the rapidly evolving realm of artificial intelligence (AI) with its AI fund, now totaling over $850 million in deployed investments. Small business owners should pay close attention to these developments, as the investment in AI is poised to redefine the competitive landscape and create numerous opportunities for innovation. This move follows Salesforce’s impressive expansion of its AI fund to $1 billion last year and positions its portfolio in line with leading innovators in the AI sector. With investments in 35 AI-first companies, including names like Anthropic and Cohere, Salesforce Ventures has built a collective valuation of over $270 billion within its portfolio. This reflects a robust commitment to discovering and backing companies that are not only pioneering technologies but also shaping the future of enterprise operations. Paul Drews, Managing Partner at Salesforce Ventures, observed, “After 15 years of investing in enterprise technology, we’ve seen how monumental platform shifts create new market leaders. We believe AI is the most profound platform shift of our time.” His insights emphasize a vital takeaway: AI is no longer just a tool for large corporations; it’s transforming industries that small businesses inhabit. For small business owners, this development represents a unique opportunity. The ongoing focus from Salesforce Ventures on securing trustworthy AI enables startups and smaller firms to tap into cutting-edge technology, which could allow them to streamline operations, enhance customer experiences, and unlock new revenue streams. Moreover, Salesforce Ventures has demonstrated a founder-first approach, committing to teams beyond just financial backing. By offering valuable market insights and a powerful global network, they provide a framework that small businesses can leverage as they embrace innovative technologies. Krishna Rao, CFO of Anthropic, shared this sentiment, stating, “Salesforce Ventures has been an important partner…They have provided valuable customer insights and helped Anthropic scale faster.” The latest push towards integrating AI into mainstream enterprise operations signals a shift from mere experimentation to practical applications. Leaders in AI are now focusing on creating solutions that address real-world challenges, particularly in automating processes and improving efficiency. This trend could offer small business owners numerous possibilities—from chatbot services that enhance customer service to AI-driven analytics that inform marketing strategies. However, small business owners should also be aware of potential challenges as they navigate this new landscape. While integrating AI can lead to significant efficiencies, the upfront costs and complexity of these technologies might pose barriers. Finding the right tools that match their specific needs and budget could require careful consideration. Additionally, as AI becomes a fixture in business operations, the demand for skilled employees who can manage and optimize these technologies may rise, potentially leading to labor shortages in the tech-savvy job market. Salesforce Ventures is not only investing in existing players but is also actively seeking emerging companies in the field. This relentless search underscores the message that for small businesses, staying ahead of trends—be it in automation or AI—could be the key to sustainable growth. John Somorjai, President of Salesforce Ventures, asserted, “Enterprises are moving beyond experimentation to full-scale production with AI…The companies that will win aren’t just building better models; they’re building more resilient businesses around transformative AI capabilities.” For small business owners looking to capitalize on these trends, engaging with the evolving AI ecosystem could be transformative. From leveraging existing AI tools to considering partnerships with innovative startups, there is a landscape rich with options for those willing to adapt. Salesforce Ventures aims to be a long-term partner for those navigating the AI revolution, lending both financial support and market insights. For businesses keen on understanding how to integrate AI effectively, tapping into resources like Salesforce’s global network could prove invaluable. As this new era unfolds, small business owners must remain vigilant and proactive. Embracing AI not only offers a path to operational resilience but also positions businesses to be competitive players in a dynamic market being reshaped by technology. For more information on this initiative, you can read the original press release. Image via Envanto This article, "Salesforce Ventures Accelerates AI Investments, Backing 35 Innovators" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. It's impressive when new flagship TVs that came out this year drop in price months after their release, but when they also happen to be the best OLED TV your money can buy, it becomes a bargain (well, if you can afford it). The 65-inch LG G5 OLED TV is $1,996.99 (originally $2,496.99), the lowest price it has been since its recent release, according to price-tracking tools. The bigger 77-inch and 83-inch series are also at their lowest prices right now. LG 65-Inch Evo G5 OLED TV (OLED65G5WUA) $1,996.99 at Amazon $2,496.99 Save $500.00 Get Deal Get Deal $1,996.99 at Amazon $2,496.99 Save $500.00 LG 77-Inch Evo G5 OLED TV (OLED77G5WUA) $3,496.99 at Amazon $4,499.99 Save $1,003.00 Get Deal Get Deal $3,496.99 at Amazon $4,499.99 Save $1,003.00 LG 83-Inch Evo G5 OLED TV (OLED83G5WUA) $4,996.99 at Amazon $6,499.99 Save $1,503.00 Get Deal Get Deal $4,996.99 at Amazon $6,499.99 Save $1,503.00 SEE 0 MORE OLED TVs offer the best colors and contrast ratio that money can buy. They don't come cheap, though (but you can still shop for budget options). Two of the biggest downsides of OLED TVs, though, are that they can suffer from the notorious burn-in effect and that they don't get as bright as QLED or LED TVs, so they're better suited for dimmer or theater rooms. But when LG upgraded the G4 in 2025, they made sure to address one of these issues. For an OLED, the Evo G5 gets bright, at 1,608 nits (average for an LED). That means you can actually use this OLED TV in a bright room without getting the quality washed away. The color accuracy is on point out of the box, and it comes with a 165Hz VRR, 12.9 ms of input lag in Game Mode, and a 120Hz native refresh rate, making it great for gaming, according to PCMag's "outstanding" review. They also deemed it the best OLED TV of 2025. Like all LGs, you'll get HDR-10 and Dolby Vision, but not HDR10+. If you're searching for the best OLED TV of 2025 at its best price, you're looking at it. Our Best Editor-Vetted Early Black Friday Deals Right Now Apple AirPods Pro 2 Noise Cancelling Wireless Earbuds — $169.99 (List Price $249.00) Apple iPad 11" 128GB A16 WiFi Tablet (Blue, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Plus — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Shark AV2501AE AI XL Hepa- Safe Self-Emptying Base Robot Vacuum — $459.95 (List Price $649.99) Ring Pan-Tilt Indoor Cam, White with Ring Indoor Cam (2nd Gen), White — $59.99 (List Price $99.99) Blink Video Doorbell Wireless (Newest Model) + Sync Module Core — $29.99 (List Price $69.99) Blink Mini 2 1080p Indoor Security Camera (2-Pack, White) — $27.99 (List Price $69.99) Ring Video Doorbell Pro 2 with Ring Chime Pro — $149.99 (List Price $259.99) Introducing Amazon Fire TV 55" Omni Mini-LED Series, QLED 4K UHD smart TV, Dolby Vision IQ, 144hz gaming mode, Ambient Experience, hands-free with Alexa, 2024 release — $699.99 (List Price $819.99) Blink Outdoor 4 1080p 2-Camera Kit With Sync Module Core — $51.99 (List Price $129.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Company’s weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. I’m Mark Sullivan, a senior writer at Fast Company, covering emerging tech, AI, and tech policy. This week, I’m focusing on a stunning stat showing that OpenAI’s ChatGPT engages with more than a million users a week about suicidal thoughts. I also look at new Anthropic research on AI “introspection,” and at a Texas philosopher’s take on AI and morality. Sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here. And if you have comments on this issue and/or ideas for future ones, drop me a line at sullivan@fastcompany.com, and follow me on X (formerly Twitter) @thesullivan. OpenAI’s vulnerable position OpenAI says that 0.15% of users active in a given week have conversations that include “explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent.” Considering that ChatGPT has an estimated 700 million weekly active users, that works out to more than a million such conversations every week. That puts OpenAI in a very vulnerable position. There’s no telling how many of those users will choose their actions based on the output of a language model. There’s the case of teenager Adam Raine, who died by suicide in April after talking consistently with ChatGPT. His parents are suing OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, charging that their son took his life as a result of his chatbot discussions. While users feel like they can talk to a non-human entity without judgement, there’s evidence that chatbots aren’t always good therapists. Researchers at Brown University found that AI chatbots routinely violate core mental health ethics standards, underscoring the need for legal standards and oversight as use of these tools increases. All of this helps explain OpenAI’s recent moves around mental health. The company decided to make significant changes in its newest GPT-5 model based on concern about users with mental health issues. It trained the model to be less sycophantic, or less likely to constantly validate the user’s thoughts, even when they’re self-distructive, for example. This week the company introduced further changes. Chatbot responses to distressed users may now include links to crisis hotlines. The chatbot might reroute sensitive conversations originating to safer models. Some users might see gentle reminders to take breaks⁠ during long chat sessions. OpenAI says it tested its models’ responses to 1,000 challenging self-harm and suicide conversations, finding that the new GPT‑5 model gave 91% satisfactory answers compared to 77% for the previous GPT‑5 model. But those are just evals performed in a lab—how well they emulate real-world conversations is anybody’s guess. As OpenAI itself has said, it’s hard to consistently and accurately pick up on signs of a distressed user. The problem began coming to light with research showing that ChatGPT users—especially younger ones—spend a lot of time talking to the chatbot about personal matters including self-esteem issues, friend relationships, and the like. While such conversations are not the most numerous on ChatGPT, researchers say they are the lengthiest and most engaged. Anthropic shows that AI models can think about their own thoughts It may come as a surprise to some people that AI labs cannot explain, in mathematical terms, how large AI models arrive at the answers they give. There’s a whole subfield in AI safety called “mechanistic interpretability” dedicated to trying to look inside these models to understand how they make connections and reason. Anthropic’s Mechanistic Interpretability team has just released new research showing evidence that large language models can display introspection. That is, they can recognize their own internal thought processes, rather than just fabricate plausible-sounding answers when questioned about their reasoning. The discovery could be important for safety research. If models can accurately report on their own internal mechanisms, researchers could gain valuable insights into their reasoning processes and more effectively identify and resolve behavioral problems, Anthropic says. It also implies that an AI model might be capable of reflecting on wrong turns in its “thinking” that send it in unsafe directions (perhaps failing to object to a user considering self-harm). The researchers found the clearest signs of introspection in its largest and most advanced models—Claude Opus 4 and Claude Opus 4.1—suggesting that AI models’ introspective abilities are likely to become more sophisticated as the technology continues to advance. Anthropic is quick to point out that AI models don’t think introspectively in the nuanced way we humans do. Despite the limitations, the observation of any introspective behavior at all goes against prevailing assumptions among AI researchers. Such progress in investigating high-level cognitive capabilities like introspection can gradually take the mystery out of AI systems and how they function. Can AIs be taught morals and values? Part of the problem of aligning AI systems with human goals and aspirations is that models can’t easily be taught moral frameworks that help guide their outputs. While AI can mimic human decision-making, it can’t act as a “moral agent” that understands the difference between right and wrong, such that it can be held accountable for its actions, says Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M. AI can be observed outputting decisions and recommendations that sound similar to those humans might produce, but the way the AI reasons toward constructing them isn’t very humanlike at all, Peterson adds. Humans make judgements with a sense of free will and moral responsibility, but those things can’t currently be trained into AI models. In a legal sense (which may be a reflection of society’s moral sense), if an AI system causes harm, the blame lies with its developers or users, not the technology itself. Peterson asserts that AI can be aligned with human values such as fairness, safety, and transparency. But, he says, it’s a hard science problem, and the stakes of succeeding are high. “We cannot get AI to do what we want unless we can be very clear about how we should define value terms such as ‘bias,’ ‘fairness,’ and ‘safety,’” he says, noting that even with improved training data, ambiguity in defining these concepts can lead to questionable outcomes. More AI coverage from Fast Company: Harvey, OpenAI, and the race to use AI to revolutionize Big Law The 26 words that could kill OpenAI’s Sora Exclusive new data shows Google is winning the AI search wars OpenAI finalizes restructure and revises Microsoft partnership Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium. View the full article

Samsung Electronics on Thursday reported a 32.5% increase in operating profit for the third quarter, driven by rebounding demand for its computer memory chips, which the company expects will continue to grow on the back of artificial intelligence. The South Korean technology giant set a new high in quarterly revenue, which rose nearly 9% to 86 trillion won ($60.4 billion) for the July-September period, fueled by increased sales of semiconductor products and mobile phones. Samsung, which has dual strength in both components and finished products, said it expects the demand driven by AI to further expand market opportunities in coming months. SK Hynix, another major South Korean chipmaker, also reported a record operating profit of 11.4 trillion won ($8 billion) on Wednesday, which it also described as AI-related growth. Samsung’s operating profit of 12.2 trillion won ($8.6 billion) in the last quarter marked a 160% increase from the previous quarter, when it said its semiconductor earnings were weighed down by inventory value adjustments and one-off costs related to technology export restrictions on China. Samsung’s semiconductor division posted 7 trillion in operating profit for the third quarter, with the company reporting strong sales in high bandwidth memory chips, which are used to power AI applications. “The semiconductor market is expected to remain strong, driven by ongoing AI investment momentum,” the company said in a statement. The company said an advanced version of its high-bandwidth memory chips, the HBM3E, is “currently in mass production and being sold to all relevant customers,” while samples of its next-generation product, the HBM4, are being shipped to key clients. —Kim Tong-Hyung, Associated Press View the full article

Seven people have been arrested in the investigation of a stunning heist at the Louvre Museum in Paris, but the lavish, stolen jewels that once adorned France’s royals are still missing. In the days after the theft, a handful of experts warned that the artifacts valued at more than $100 million (88 million euros) could be melted or broken into parts. If done successfully, some say those smaller pieces could later go up for sale as part of a new necklace, earrings, or other jewelry, without turning too many heads. “You don’t even have to put them on a black market, you just put them in a jewelry store,” said Erin Thompson, an art crime professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “It could be sold down the street from the Louvre.” Thompson and others say that this has become increasingly common with stolen jeweled and metal goods, noting that it’s a way thieves can try to cover their tracks and make money. It’s not like someone could publicly wear one of France’s stolen Crown Jewels — and finding a market to sell the full artifacts would be incredibly difficult after “everyone and their sister” has seen photos of them over the last week, said Christopher Marinello, a lawyer and founder of Art Recovery International. French prosecutor Laure Beccuau made a plea Wednesday to whoever has the jewels. “These jewels are now, of course, unsellable … Anyone who buys them would be guilty of concealment of stolen goods,” she warned. “There’s still time to give them back.” The jewels may be hard to monetize “By breaking them apart, they will hide their theft,” Marinello said, adding that these items could become even more “traceless” if they’re taken out of France and through jewel cutters and robust supply chains in other countries. Still, such pieces are often sold for a fraction of the value of what was stolen — due to their smaller size, but also because melting or breaking down high-profile items removes the historical worth. It isn’t a simple process. “The real art in an art heist isn’t the stealing, it’s the selling,” explained Robert Wittman, former senior investigator of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s art crime team. Wittman, who has since formed his own private practice, said that the individuals behind such heists are typically “better criminals or thieves than they are businessmen.” Unlike others, Wittman is skeptical about the thieves successfully monetizing the artifacts they stole from the Louvre — which include an emerald necklace and earrings, two crowns, two brooches, a sapphire necklace and a single earring worn by 19th-century royals. He notes the gems may still be identifiable by their clarity, for example, and gold that was refined when the pieces were made hundreds of years ago is not as pure as what’s typically in demand today. “Because of what they are, there’s really no point destroying them,” Wittman said, while pointing to the risks of selling such high-profile stolen goods. Scott Guginsky, executive vice president of the Jewelers’ Security Alliance, a nonprofit trade association focused on preventing jewelry crime, also notes the age and quality of the artifacts’ diamonds. He suspects they’re probably not graded. “It’s not something that you can move on the open market. It’s nothing that can go through an auction house,” said Guginsky, who used to run the New York Police Department’s organized theft squad. Given the amount of preparation that the thieves likely put into this, Guginsky believes they have a plan for selling the jewels, even if they might first decide to “sit on” the jewelry and wait out suspicion. “I can’t see them stealing it without having an idea what they want to do,” he said. “There’s always a person willing to buy stolen jewelry. No matter what it is, somebody will buy it.” Sara Yood, CEO and general counsel of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, notes most jewelry businesses implement anti-money laundering programs and look out for red flags like unusual orders, repeated purchases, and requests for secrecy. Still, she and others say the age of some jewels—if broken down effectively—could actually make it harder to track. Newer gemstones, for example, sometimes carry a laser inscription inside that can be evaluated in a lab. But “because these are historical pieces, it’s rather unlikely that it has those identifying features,” noted Yood. Experts like Thompson say bigger gems can be recut to a point that they’re unrecognizable. A challenge is finding people who have the skill to do that and don’t ask too many questions — but it’s possible, she said. Whether the people behind the heist had those contacts or certain buyers lined up is unknown. But it’s important to also note that “the guys who actually enter the museums are usually all hired hands, and they’re almost always caught in these cases,” Thompson added. Chances of recovery look dim She and others say that museums have increasingly faced a rash of similar thefts over recent years. Thompson notes that stealing from storage can go undetected for longer: the British Museum in London, which has accused a former curator of stealing artifacts and selling them online, is still trying to recover some of the 2,000 items stolen. Some past thieves have made ransom demands for stolen artwork overall, or wait for a potential “no questions asked” reward from an insurance company — which can amount to about a 10% cut for some insured pieces in Europe, Thompson says. The jewels stolen from the Louvre, however, were not privately insured. Sometimes government offers of a reward for information about a high-profile heist can also quicken the investigation, although the French government has yet to publicize such an incentive. If that changes, or promising leads are uncovered from the evidence left behind at the Louvre, experts like Wittman note it could increase the chances of recovering the artifacts. Still, as more time passes, others feel that the fate of finding the historic jewels looks dim. “I think they’re going to catch the criminals,” Marinello said. “But I don’t think they’ll find them with the jewels intact.” —Wyatte Grantham-Philips and R.J. Rico, Associated Press View the full article

Hundreds of thousands of Haredim converge on Jerusalem to oppose mandatory military serviceView the full article

When considering the cost of purchasing a franchise, several key factors come into play. The initial franchise fee typically ranges from $20,000 to $50,000, but total startup costs can reach up to $2.3 million. Moreover, ongoing royalty payments and marketing contributions greatly affect your financial planning. Equipment and inventory costs, along with any professional fees, further complicate the budget. Comprehending these elements is essential, as they directly impact your potential return on investment. What other factors should you consider? Key Takeaways Initial franchise fees vary significantly, typically ranging from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on the franchise brand and business model. Total start-up costs can range from $1.3 million to $2.3 million, influenced by equipment and inventory requirements. Ongoing royalty payments, usually between 4.5% and 9% of gross sales, impact overall profitability and cash flow management. Marketing contributions and additional expenses, including advertising fees, can further affect the total cost of owning a franchise. Financing options, such as personal savings or loans, play a crucial role in determining the affordability of franchise investments. Initial Franchise Fees When considering franchise ownership, one key factor you’ll encounter is the initial franchise fee, which typically falls between $20,000 and $50,000. This fee varies based on the franchise brand and business model. For instance, well-known franchises like McDonald’s may charge over $45,000, with total start-up costs ranging from $1.3 million to $2.3 million. To fully understand what’re the costs associated with operating a franchise, you’ll need to review the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD). This document provides detailed information about the initial fee and its components. Moreover, if you’re purchasing an existing franchise, transfer fees can increase your initial investment. Grasping these costs is crucial when evaluating how much it costs to purchase a franchise and its financial viability. Ongoing Royalty Payments When you invest in a franchise, ongoing royalty payments play a key role in your financial environment. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 9% of your gross sales, these fees directly affect your profitability and are fundamental for accessing the franchisor’s brand and support systems. Moreover, the structure of these payments can vary greatly between franchises, so it’s critical to understand how they’ll impact your overall investment. Royalty Fees Explained Royalty fees are a vital aspect of franchise ownership, typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales. These ongoing payments support your access to the franchisor’s established trademarks, business systems, and marketing resources. Nevertheless, they also reduce your net income, so it’s important to factor them into your financial planning. Royalty payments are commonly calculated monthly or quarterly, necessitating regular reviews of your cash flow. Franchise agreements usually specify the royalty percentage, which can differ based on the franchise’s market position and the services provided. Furthermore, some franchises impose minimum royalty fees, ensuring that the franchisor receives a baseline income regardless of your sales performance, further influencing your overall financial obligations. Impact on Profitability Though ongoing royalty payments are vital for accessing a franchise’s established resources, they can have a significant impact on your profitability. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, these fees can reduce your overall earnings over time. Charged monthly or quarterly, they represent a consistent expense you’ll need to incorporate into your financial projections. Unfortunately, you often have little control over these percentages, as they’re set by the franchisor, which can limit your ability to manage profits effectively. Furthermore, unexpected advertising costs tied to royalty fees may further diminish your net profitability, particularly in years of lower sales. It’s important to assess the financial health of the franchise before you invest, considering how royalties will affect your bottom line. Variability Among Franchises The variability in ongoing royalty payments among different franchises can greatly influence your overall investment strategy. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, these fees considerably impact your profitability over time. Comprehending the specific terms of these payments is essential, as they create a continuous financial obligation. Here are three key factors to reflect on: Percentage Rate: Some franchises charge higher royalty fees, especially premium brands with established reputations and support systems. Frequency of Payments: Royalty fees are often calculated monthly or quarterly, affecting cash flow. Additional Fees: Many franchises impose extra advertising fees, further reducing your profit margins alongside standard royalties. Being aware of these factors can help you assess the long-term viability of your franchise investment. Additional Costs and Expenses When you invest in a franchise, it’s vital to take into account additional costs and expenses that go beyond the initial fees. Ongoing franchise fees, operational costs, and hidden expenses can greatly influence your bottom line, so it’s important to plan accordingly. Comprehending these factors will help you create a more accurate financial picture as you navigate your franchise path. Ongoing Franchise Fees Ongoing franchise fees, which often include royalty payments and contributions to marketing funds, play an important role in determining your overall financial obligations as a franchisee. These fees can greatly impact your profit margins, so it’s important to understand them fully. Here are some key considerations: Royalty Fees: Typically range from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, affecting your bottom line over time. Advertising Contributions: You’ll likely need to contribute a percentage of gross sales to a national or regional advertising fund. Local Marketing Costs: Additional expenses for local promotions, like online ads or materials, can further increase your costs. Being aware of these ongoing fees is paramount for evaluating your financial commitments and overall profitability as a franchisee. Operational Cost Considerations Comprehending the operational costs associated with running a franchise is vital for your financial planning, especially since these expenses can greatly influence your profitability. Typical ongoing costs include salaries, utilities, and maintenance, which vary by franchise type and location. Furthermore, franchise royalty fees of 5% to 9% of gross sales can markedly impact your bottom line. Marketing expenses, including contributions to a national fund and local initiatives, should also be factored in. Professional fees for legal and accounting services may range from $1,500 to $5,000 for reviewing the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD). Finally, ensuring adequate working capital for 2-3 months to 2-3 years of operating expenses is vital. Cost Category Estimated Range Notes Employee Salaries Varies by location Major ongoing expense Royalty Fees 5% – 9% of gross sales Substantial recurring cost Marketing Expenses Varies by initiatives Local and national contributions Professional Fees $1,500 – $5,000 For legal and accounting needs Hidden Expenses to Anticipate Though you’ve gained insight into the operational costs of running a franchise, it’s important to recognize that hidden expenses can greatly affect your financial planning. These additional costs often catch new franchisees off guard, so budgeting for them is vital. Here are three hidden expenses to take into account: Ongoing Royalty Fees: Typically between 4.5% and 5.9% of gross sales, these fees can greatly diminish your profit margins over time. Advertising Contributions: Often a percentage of gross sales, this fund supports marketing efforts but adds to your overall expenses. Professional Fees: Legal and accounting services for compliance, which can range from $1,500 to $5,000, are fundamental for traversing the franchise environment. Being aware of these costs helps guarantee a more accurate financial forecast for your franchise. Equipment and Inventory Costs When starting a franchise, comprehension of equipment and inventory costs is crucial to your financial planning. Equipment costs can vary widely, from a few thousand dollars for basic setups to over $100,000 for specialized machinery in industries like food service. Initial inventory costs typically range from $5,000 to $50,000, depending on franchise requirements. Often, franchises require you to purchase from approved suppliers, which can raise costs. The Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) outlines these expenses, giving you transparency. Furthermore, you should budget for ongoing inventory replenishment, as this can greatly affect cash flow, especially in high-turnover industries. Cost Type Range Notes Equipment Costs $1,000 – $100,000 Varies by industry type Initial Inventory $5,000 – $50,000 Based on franchise requirements Supplier Restrictions Higher costs possible Must buy from approved suppliers Ongoing Costs Variable Affects cash flow in high turnover sectors Marketing and Advertising Fees Marketing and advertising fees play an integral role in the success of your franchise, as these expenses can greatly affect your bottom line. Comprehending how to allocate funds effectively is vital. Here are three key aspects to evaluate: National Advertising Fund: You’ll often contribute a percentage of your gross sales, usually between 1% to 4%, to support brand-wide marketing efforts. Local Marketing Costs: These can vary considerably, including online ads, print materials, and event sponsorships customized to your specific location. Promotional Materials: Some franchises require you to budget for items like banners and promotional goods, further increasing your marketing expenses. Professional Fees and Legal Assistance Steering through the terrain of franchise ownership often requires expert guidance, particularly regarding professional fees and legal assistance. You’ll typically face legal fees for services like reviewing the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), which can range from $1,500 to $5,000 based on the complexity of the franchise agreement. Engaging a franchise attorney is vital, as they guarantee your documentation complies with laws and regulations, protecting your investment. Furthermore, you may need to budget for accounting services to manage bookkeeping and tax compliance, important for your financial health. It’s wise to reflect on these initial legal and accounting fees as part of your overall startup costs. These professionals provide valuable insights, helping you navigate potential challenges in your franchise relationship. Financing Options and Debt Servicing Steering through financing options is vital for anyone looking to invest in a franchise, as the right funding strategy can greatly influence your long-term success. Many franchisees often rely on personal savings or loans, whereas some franchisors provide financial assistance, even if options can be limited. It’s important to reflect on the impact of ongoing debt-servicing obligations on profitability. Here are three key factors to evaluate: Initial Investment: Franchise costs can range from $20,000 to over $2 million, affecting financing needs. Royalty Payments: Ongoing fees, typically 4.5% to 5.9% of sales, can strain your cash flow and affect debt repayment. Total Cost of Ownership: Comprehending all costs helps determine manageable debt levels for sustainable operations. Market Position and Brand Strength When considering a franchise investment, comprehension of the market position and brand strength of the franchise is crucial, as these factors can greatly affect your financial commitments. Well-established brands often charge initial fees between $20,000 and $50,000 or more because of their strong market recognition and consumer trust. A franchise’s competitive environment and customer loyalty likewise influence ongoing royalty fees, typically ranging from 5% to 9% of gross sales, impacting your long-term profitability. Strong brand recognition can result in higher sales volume, enabling you to recoup your initial investment more quickly. Furthermore, robust franchise support, including marketing assistance, is linked to brand strength, which can alleviate some advertising costs. Researching a franchise’s reputation can provide valuable insights into its financial performance. Frequently Asked Questions What Costs Are Involved in Buying a Franchise? When buying a franchise, you’ll encounter several costs. Initially, you’ll pay an upfront franchise fee, typically between $20,000 and $50,000. Ongoing royalty fees of 5% to 9% on gross sales will affect your profits. Moreover, you’ll need to budget for real estate, initial inventory, renovations, and marketing expenses. Don’t forget professional fees for legal and accounting services, which usually range from $1,500 to $5,000 for necessary compliance and financial management. What Are Some Factors to Consider Before Buying a Franchise? Before buying a franchise, you should consider several key factors. First, evaluate the initial franchise fees and ongoing royalty fees, which can greatly affect your profitability. Review the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) to understand all costs, including advertising contributions and operational expenses. Furthermore, assess the franchise’s financial health and historical performance. Speaking with current franchisees can provide valuable insights into their experiences and help you gauge potential return on investment. Why Does It Cost so Much to Franchise? Franchising costs are substantial owing to various factors. You’ll likely pay an initial fee for brand rights, which can range from $20,000 to $50,000. Ongoing royalty fees, typically 4.5% to 9% of sales, add to your expenses. You’ll additionally need to take into account costs for real estate, inventory, renovations, and required purchases from the franchisor. Legal fees for reviewing documents can further increase your initial investment, highlighting the importance of thorough financial planning. What Factors Contribute to the High Cost of Maintaining a Franchise? Maintaining a franchise can be costly because of several factors. You’ll pay ongoing royalty fees, typically between 4.5% and 9% of gross sales, which can greatly cut into profits. Furthermore, contributing to advertising funds based on sales adds to your expenses. You may likewise face higher costs for required products from the franchisor and compliance costs from operational restrictions. Regular operational expenses, like salaries and utilities, further increase your financial burden. Conclusion https://elements.envato.com/photos/franchise+purchase+cost In conclusion, comprehending the costs associated with purchasing a franchise is essential for your financial planning. The initial franchise fee, ongoing royalties, and additional expenses like equipment and marketing can greatly impact your investment. By thoroughly evaluating these factors, along with market position and brand strength, you can make informed decisions that align with your financial goals. Careful consideration of financing options likewise plays a key role in managing your overall costs effectively. Image via Envanto This article, "What Factors Influence How Much Does It Cost to Purchase a Franchise?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

When considering the cost of purchasing a franchise, several key factors come into play. The initial franchise fee typically ranges from $20,000 to $50,000, but total startup costs can reach up to $2.3 million. Moreover, ongoing royalty payments and marketing contributions greatly affect your financial planning. Equipment and inventory costs, along with any professional fees, further complicate the budget. Comprehending these elements is essential, as they directly impact your potential return on investment. What other factors should you consider? Key Takeaways Initial franchise fees vary significantly, typically ranging from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on the franchise brand and business model. Total start-up costs can range from $1.3 million to $2.3 million, influenced by equipment and inventory requirements. Ongoing royalty payments, usually between 4.5% and 9% of gross sales, impact overall profitability and cash flow management. Marketing contributions and additional expenses, including advertising fees, can further affect the total cost of owning a franchise. Financing options, such as personal savings or loans, play a crucial role in determining the affordability of franchise investments. Initial Franchise Fees When considering franchise ownership, one key factor you’ll encounter is the initial franchise fee, which typically falls between $20,000 and $50,000. This fee varies based on the franchise brand and business model. For instance, well-known franchises like McDonald’s may charge over $45,000, with total start-up costs ranging from $1.3 million to $2.3 million. To fully understand what’re the costs associated with operating a franchise, you’ll need to review the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD). This document provides detailed information about the initial fee and its components. Moreover, if you’re purchasing an existing franchise, transfer fees can increase your initial investment. Grasping these costs is crucial when evaluating how much it costs to purchase a franchise and its financial viability. Ongoing Royalty Payments When you invest in a franchise, ongoing royalty payments play a key role in your financial environment. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 9% of your gross sales, these fees directly affect your profitability and are fundamental for accessing the franchisor’s brand and support systems. Moreover, the structure of these payments can vary greatly between franchises, so it’s critical to understand how they’ll impact your overall investment. Royalty Fees Explained Royalty fees are a vital aspect of franchise ownership, typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales. These ongoing payments support your access to the franchisor’s established trademarks, business systems, and marketing resources. Nevertheless, they also reduce your net income, so it’s important to factor them into your financial planning. Royalty payments are commonly calculated monthly or quarterly, necessitating regular reviews of your cash flow. Franchise agreements usually specify the royalty percentage, which can differ based on the franchise’s market position and the services provided. Furthermore, some franchises impose minimum royalty fees, ensuring that the franchisor receives a baseline income regardless of your sales performance, further influencing your overall financial obligations. Impact on Profitability Though ongoing royalty payments are vital for accessing a franchise’s established resources, they can have a significant impact on your profitability. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, these fees can reduce your overall earnings over time. Charged monthly or quarterly, they represent a consistent expense you’ll need to incorporate into your financial projections. Unfortunately, you often have little control over these percentages, as they’re set by the franchisor, which can limit your ability to manage profits effectively. Furthermore, unexpected advertising costs tied to royalty fees may further diminish your net profitability, particularly in years of lower sales. It’s important to assess the financial health of the franchise before you invest, considering how royalties will affect your bottom line. Variability Among Franchises The variability in ongoing royalty payments among different franchises can greatly influence your overall investment strategy. Typically ranging from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, these fees considerably impact your profitability over time. Comprehending the specific terms of these payments is essential, as they create a continuous financial obligation. Here are three key factors to reflect on: Percentage Rate: Some franchises charge higher royalty fees, especially premium brands with established reputations and support systems. Frequency of Payments: Royalty fees are often calculated monthly or quarterly, affecting cash flow. Additional Fees: Many franchises impose extra advertising fees, further reducing your profit margins alongside standard royalties. Being aware of these factors can help you assess the long-term viability of your franchise investment. Additional Costs and Expenses When you invest in a franchise, it’s vital to take into account additional costs and expenses that go beyond the initial fees. Ongoing franchise fees, operational costs, and hidden expenses can greatly influence your bottom line, so it’s important to plan accordingly. Comprehending these factors will help you create a more accurate financial picture as you navigate your franchise path. Ongoing Franchise Fees Ongoing franchise fees, which often include royalty payments and contributions to marketing funds, play an important role in determining your overall financial obligations as a franchisee. These fees can greatly impact your profit margins, so it’s important to understand them fully. Here are some key considerations: Royalty Fees: Typically range from 4.5% to 5.9% of gross sales, affecting your bottom line over time. Advertising Contributions: You’ll likely need to contribute a percentage of gross sales to a national or regional advertising fund. Local Marketing Costs: Additional expenses for local promotions, like online ads or materials, can further increase your costs. Being aware of these ongoing fees is paramount for evaluating your financial commitments and overall profitability as a franchisee. Operational Cost Considerations Comprehending the operational costs associated with running a franchise is vital for your financial planning, especially since these expenses can greatly influence your profitability. Typical ongoing costs include salaries, utilities, and maintenance, which vary by franchise type and location. Furthermore, franchise royalty fees of 5% to 9% of gross sales can markedly impact your bottom line. Marketing expenses, including contributions to a national fund and local initiatives, should also be factored in. Professional fees for legal and accounting services may range from $1,500 to $5,000 for reviewing the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD). Finally, ensuring adequate working capital for 2-3 months to 2-3 years of operating expenses is vital. Cost Category Estimated Range Notes Employee Salaries Varies by location Major ongoing expense Royalty Fees 5% – 9% of gross sales Substantial recurring cost Marketing Expenses Varies by initiatives Local and national contributions Professional Fees $1,500 – $5,000 For legal and accounting needs Hidden Expenses to Anticipate Though you’ve gained insight into the operational costs of running a franchise, it’s important to recognize that hidden expenses can greatly affect your financial planning. These additional costs often catch new franchisees off guard, so budgeting for them is vital. Here are three hidden expenses to take into account: Ongoing Royalty Fees: Typically between 4.5% and 5.9% of gross sales, these fees can greatly diminish your profit margins over time. Advertising Contributions: Often a percentage of gross sales, this fund supports marketing efforts but adds to your overall expenses. Professional Fees: Legal and accounting services for compliance, which can range from $1,500 to $5,000, are fundamental for traversing the franchise environment. Being aware of these costs helps guarantee a more accurate financial forecast for your franchise. Equipment and Inventory Costs When starting a franchise, comprehension of equipment and inventory costs is crucial to your financial planning. Equipment costs can vary widely, from a few thousand dollars for basic setups to over $100,000 for specialized machinery in industries like food service. Initial inventory costs typically range from $5,000 to $50,000, depending on franchise requirements. Often, franchises require you to purchase from approved suppliers, which can raise costs. The Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) outlines these expenses, giving you transparency. Furthermore, you should budget for ongoing inventory replenishment, as this can greatly affect cash flow, especially in high-turnover industries. Cost Type Range Notes Equipment Costs $1,000 – $100,000 Varies by industry type Initial Inventory $5,000 – $50,000 Based on franchise requirements Supplier Restrictions Higher costs possible Must buy from approved suppliers Ongoing Costs Variable Affects cash flow in high turnover sectors Marketing and Advertising Fees Marketing and advertising fees play an integral role in the success of your franchise, as these expenses can greatly affect your bottom line. Comprehending how to allocate funds effectively is vital. Here are three key aspects to evaluate: National Advertising Fund: You’ll often contribute a percentage of your gross sales, usually between 1% to 4%, to support brand-wide marketing efforts. Local Marketing Costs: These can vary considerably, including online ads, print materials, and event sponsorships customized to your specific location. Promotional Materials: Some franchises require you to budget for items like banners and promotional goods, further increasing your marketing expenses. Professional Fees and Legal Assistance Steering through the terrain of franchise ownership often requires expert guidance, particularly regarding professional fees and legal assistance. You’ll typically face legal fees for services like reviewing the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), which can range from $1,500 to $5,000 based on the complexity of the franchise agreement. Engaging a franchise attorney is vital, as they guarantee your documentation complies with laws and regulations, protecting your investment. Furthermore, you may need to budget for accounting services to manage bookkeeping and tax compliance, important for your financial health. It’s wise to reflect on these initial legal and accounting fees as part of your overall startup costs. These professionals provide valuable insights, helping you navigate potential challenges in your franchise relationship. Financing Options and Debt Servicing Steering through financing options is vital for anyone looking to invest in a franchise, as the right funding strategy can greatly influence your long-term success. Many franchisees often rely on personal savings or loans, whereas some franchisors provide financial assistance, even if options can be limited. It’s important to reflect on the impact of ongoing debt-servicing obligations on profitability. Here are three key factors to evaluate: Initial Investment: Franchise costs can range from $20,000 to over $2 million, affecting financing needs. Royalty Payments: Ongoing fees, typically 4.5% to 5.9% of sales, can strain your cash flow and affect debt repayment. Total Cost of Ownership: Comprehending all costs helps determine manageable debt levels for sustainable operations. Market Position and Brand Strength When considering a franchise investment, comprehension of the market position and brand strength of the franchise is crucial, as these factors can greatly affect your financial commitments. Well-established brands often charge initial fees between $20,000 and $50,000 or more because of their strong market recognition and consumer trust. A franchise’s competitive environment and customer loyalty likewise influence ongoing royalty fees, typically ranging from 5% to 9% of gross sales, impacting your long-term profitability. Strong brand recognition can result in higher sales volume, enabling you to recoup your initial investment more quickly. Furthermore, robust franchise support, including marketing assistance, is linked to brand strength, which can alleviate some advertising costs. Researching a franchise’s reputation can provide valuable insights into its financial performance. Frequently Asked Questions What Costs Are Involved in Buying a Franchise? When buying a franchise, you’ll encounter several costs. Initially, you’ll pay an upfront franchise fee, typically between $20,000 and $50,000. Ongoing royalty fees of 5% to 9% on gross sales will affect your profits. Moreover, you’ll need to budget for real estate, initial inventory, renovations, and marketing expenses. Don’t forget professional fees for legal and accounting services, which usually range from $1,500 to $5,000 for necessary compliance and financial management. What Are Some Factors to Consider Before Buying a Franchise? Before buying a franchise, you should consider several key factors. First, evaluate the initial franchise fees and ongoing royalty fees, which can greatly affect your profitability. Review the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) to understand all costs, including advertising contributions and operational expenses. Furthermore, assess the franchise’s financial health and historical performance. Speaking with current franchisees can provide valuable insights into their experiences and help you gauge potential return on investment. Why Does It Cost so Much to Franchise? Franchising costs are substantial owing to various factors. You’ll likely pay an initial fee for brand rights, which can range from $20,000 to $50,000. Ongoing royalty fees, typically 4.5% to 9% of sales, add to your expenses. You’ll additionally need to take into account costs for real estate, inventory, renovations, and required purchases from the franchisor. Legal fees for reviewing documents can further increase your initial investment, highlighting the importance of thorough financial planning. What Factors Contribute to the High Cost of Maintaining a Franchise? Maintaining a franchise can be costly because of several factors. You’ll pay ongoing royalty fees, typically between 4.5% and 9% of gross sales, which can greatly cut into profits. Furthermore, contributing to advertising funds based on sales adds to your expenses. You may likewise face higher costs for required products from the franchisor and compliance costs from operational restrictions. Regular operational expenses, like salaries and utilities, further increase your financial burden. Conclusion https://elements.envato.com/photos/franchise+purchase+cost In conclusion, comprehending the costs associated with purchasing a franchise is essential for your financial planning. The initial franchise fee, ongoing royalties, and additional expenses like equipment and marketing can greatly impact your investment. By thoroughly evaluating these factors, along with market position and brand strength, you can make informed decisions that align with your financial goals. Careful consideration of financing options likewise plays a key role in managing your overall costs effectively. Image via Envanto This article, "What Factors Influence How Much Does It Cost to Purchase a Franchise?" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

It will soon be time, once again, for our clocks to “fall back.” Nov. 2 is the date most places in the U.S. quit daylight saving time for 2025 and go back to standard time. We're still on this clock-changing treadmill, despite legislation that was supposed to eliminate it a few years ago, and despite medical professionals warning that these clock changes are bad for our health. For example, a recent study out of the Stanford School of Medicine found that switching the time back and forth every year probably contributes to increased rates of stroke and obesity. Permanent daylight saving time would be an improvement on that, and permanent standard time would be even better, health-wise. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine published a position paper a few years ago stating that scientific evidence supports the idea "that the United States should eliminate seasonal time changes in favor of permanent standard time, which aligns best with human circadian biology." But despite all this, we’ll still have to turn the clocks ahead again in spring. So what ever happened to those bills in Congress aiming to abolish the time changes? The most recent attempt to eliminate clock changes failedThe Sunshine Protection Act was a federal bill that would have made daylight saving time permanent. If enacted, it would have taken effect on Nov. 5, 2023, the date that we would otherwise have changed the clocks. The result would be that our winter mornings would stay dark an hour longer than they currently do, but we’d get an hour more of daylight in the winter evenings. The bill passed the Senate in March of 2022, but it wasn't taken up by the House of Representatives. To become law, it would have had to pass the House and then be signed by the president. At this point, that ship has sailed: The Hill reported that people generally like the idea of abolishing clock changes, but that there was no consensus in the House on whether daylight time or standard time should become permanent. Moreover, passing the bill just never seemed to be a high priority for lawmakers. Which time would we stay with if we stopped changing the clocks? We operate on two different times throughout the year: "standard time" and "daylight saving time." These even get their own time zones! For example, if a time is marked as "EST," that means eastern standard time, which is different from eastern daylight time. Standard time is the one we use in winter, and daylight saving time is the one we use in summer. The bill mentioned above would have done away with standard time and kept us on daylight saving time year-round. Meanwhile, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has taken the position that we should stay on standard time (that is, winter time) year-round, since screwing with our circadian rhythms twice a year has detrimental effects on our health and safety. If they got their way, we would fall back some year and then never spring forward again. What about state laws?States have their own ideas about what time it should be. Currently, states are not allowed to switch to permanent daylight saving time, but they are allowed to stay on standard time year-round if they prefer. Two states do so: Hawaii and Arizona (minus the parts of Arizona in the Navajo nation). Nineteen states have passed laws or resolutions that would allow them to switch to permanent daylight saving time if the federal government ever allows them to do so. Those states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, are Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Three other states have made attempts to join the list: Similar bills made it partway through the Kentucky and Ohio legislatures but were not signed into law. California voters have authorized a law that isn’t yet officially on the books. Until a federal law passes, those states are stuck with their current time zones. Current federal law, as passed in 1966, allows states to opt out of daylight saving time (as Hawaii and Arizona have) but does not offer a way for states to make daylight saving time permanent or to choose their own dates for changing the clocks. If you’re sick of time changes, you can always move to one of the territories that don’t observe daylight saving, which include the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. View the full article

More than two-thirds of Americans believe homeownership is riskier now than 10 years ago due to climate change, a Clever Offers survey showed. View the full article

I-P-Go! Shares of Navan, a travel-tech firm based in Silicon Valley, hit the exchanges on Thursday. The company priced its initial public offering at $25 per share, raising roughly $923 million. The $25 per-share price is within the $24–$26 range the company zeroed-in on last week, when it also announced it would sell nearly 37 million shares of common stock. The IPO puts Navan’s valuation at around $9.2 billion. Navan shares will trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker “NAVN.” Founded in 2015, the company bills itself as “an all-in-one business travel, payments, and expense management platform that makes travel easy for frequent travelers,” helping customers find flights and hotels, automating expensing, and delivering “an intuitive experience travelers love and finance teams rely on.” In other words, the company utilizes AI technology to simplify corporate and business travel, aimed at “reshaping an industry that has not changed in 30 years,” per its SEC filings. Navan is attempting to fly as post-pandemic travel rebounds in a big way. Data from the Global Business Travel Association shows that worldwide business travel spending was expected to reach a record $1.57 trillion by the end of 2025, although that estimate may be blunted by the government shutdown and other factors. Notably, Navan is perhaps the most high-profile IPO over the past month, since the federal government shut down. The SEC’s filing process has been significantly stalled as the regulator has furloughed 90% of its staff. That put a damper on the overall IPO market, which had rebounded this year: During the third quarter of 2025, EY reports that 65 IPOs raised $15.7 billion, a big increase from the 40 IPOs that raised $8.6 billion during Q3 2024. All told, there have been 176 IPOs year-to-date totaling more than $30 billion, a 20% increase over 2024. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, in a statement on X, noted that MapLight Therapeutics, a relatively small biotech firm, went public earlier this week, and that it was proof that the government’s regulatory machinery was still working. “With yesterday’s listing of MapLight, the IPO market is still open for business—companies are going public during the government shutdown using the method Congress originally intended,” he wrote. View the full article

Deal’s collapse could hurt CoreWeave plans to meet growth targets that have driven soaring stock price View the full article

House flippers are about to get an AI assist on their next renovation project. Kai is an AI-powered tool that can visually identify what’s needed to fix up a house and put it on the market. The system converts photos and videos of house projects into SKU-level material specifications and cost estimates, making it fast and easy for an institutional home renovator to create an actionable renovation plan and order all the materials needed to get the job done. Kai has just launched a partnership with home improvement retailer Home Depot to link its building material and product selection tools directly with Home Depot’s 3.5 million item inventory list. Home renovators will be able to use Kai to scan a project, identify the materials needed, and immediately order them from Home Depot. Kai’s cofounder and CEO Or Agassi calls it an “AI-native renovation intelligence platform” that can effectively reverse engineer a scope of work on anything from a kitchen remodel to a down-to-the-studs gut renovation. With a guided photography process, Kai analyzes images of a house to determine what materials are needed to complete a given project. A photo showing a cracked door, for example, would lead the tool to offer up a few options for replacement, with their prices and availability at Home Depot stores in the area. An image of an old furnace can lead the tool to recommend a more efficient model that can increase the resale value of the home. It’s an evolution of RenoWalk, an in-house tool Home Depot had used for more than a decade, which allowed business customers to streamline property management and renovation projects by integrating with Home Depot’s inventory and ordering systems. The company decided to sunset that tool, and now Kai is taking its place, using data from the tens of thousands of renovation projects completed using the old system. Kai declined to disclose terms of the Home Depot deal. Kai’s first users are large institutional housing investors and operators, including both public and private companies. Citing nondisclosure agreements, Kai declined to reveal the names of these companies. Some of these companies own more than 100,000 houses across the U.S. They also bring their own wealth of renovation data, which Kai uses to train client-specific AI models. “If you send us a scope of work of how you like to renovate, we will know how to create a playbook based on that,” Agassi says. The system also adjusts for different types of renovation projects and budget levels. “Whether you’re looking to optimize for selling to the market, selling off market, renting the property out, we know how to understand the renovation condition and tell you what needed to be done to hit this target renovation,” Agassi says. Agassi says the system has the potential to drastically reduce project timelines and budgets, and help get more affordable housing on the market. “There’s a shortage of five million single family rentals out there. And it’s only getting worse because new inventory is unable to catch up,” Agassia says. “We are trying to solve for the biggest issue in housing.” Agassi has been looking at the housing challenges in the U.S. for more than a decade. Previously he and Kai cofounder Tov Arneson created Stoa, a now-closed proptech company that helped connect fix-and-flip housing investors with institutional investors and housing operators looking for more inventory. The company was seeing solid growth since its launch in 2017 but a hike in interest rates in 2023 hit the company hard and it shut down. Agassi says that even though the company failed, the idea behind Stoa stuck with him. Kai is an evolution of that concept. “We are fulfilling what used to be our dream at Stoa, which is a system that you get into a property, take some photos, and it tells you what you need to do in order to do an optimized renovation,” says Agassi. “The technology was never there, and now it is.” Agassi says Kai expects to be serving tens of thousands of customers by the end of the year, and plans on expanding the tool for use by mom-and-pop landlords, DIYers, and contractors next year. “We start with the largest operators, but the goal is to go all the way down to the consumer sitting in the comfort of their own homes, taking some photos, and we tell them exactly what’s needed to be done in order to renovate for the optimal outcome,” Agassi says. View the full article

Even in 2025, Google.com still knows how to have fun. If you tend to rely on your browser's address bar for Google Search, you might miss the company's latest "Doodle." But today, Oct. 30, if you head to the Google homepage, you'll find a Halloween-themed surprise: a fully playable PAC-MAN game, outfitted with spooky mazes and characters. The Halloween part makes sense, seeing as the holiday is tomorrow. But why PAC-MAN? As it happens, this year marks the game's 45th anniversary. For this Doodle, Google says it partnered with PAC-MAN's parent company, Bandi Namco Entertainment, to feature a celebratory PAC-MAN game on the homepage. If you're familiar with PAC-MAN, you won't have any trouble getting into Google's version. This is the core PAC-MAN experience players have navigated since 1980: You control PAC-MAN through a maze, eating all the dots along the way. If you crash into one of the four ghosts floating around the maze (Blinky, Inky, Pinky and Clyde), you die, unless you eat an "Power Pellet," in which case you're free to eat the ghosts. According to Google, this game has eight levels, with four haunted-house mazes. I do appreciate the effort that went into this experience. Sure, the PAC-MAN gameplay is the same as ever, but the Halloween-themed mazes are fun. I also love the attention to detail with the graphics: The visuals have scan-lines, which sells the retro look. You won't be getting 4K crispy pixels in this game, and that only makes it feel like you're back at your local arcade. Google says the game is only available today (Oct. 30) and tomorrow (Oct. 31) from the homepage, though I would hope it will be made available elsewhere (Google Doodle games are typically archived). But if you want to give it a shot, try it out now just in case. View the full article