Recent user reports indicate a perplexing battery drain in Apple Watches, affecting even the robust Apple Watch Ultra. The problem, linked to the WatchOS 10.1 update, has raised alarm among consumers and professionals who rely on the device’s longevity for daily productivity and connectivity.

For business owners and professionals, an unreliable device can mean disrupted workflows, missed notifications, and potential loss of data crucial for time-sensitive decisions. This is particularly concerning for sectors that integrate wearable technology into their operations for tracking and communication purposes.

Recognising the urgency, Apple has taken steps to rectify the issue, suggesting an impending software update aimed at resolving the excessive power consumption observed when the Watch is paired with an iPhone. An interim iOS update has attempted to mitigate the issue but with limited success.

Businesses reliant on Apple’s ecosystem should stay alert to these developments. It’s advisable for them to keep their devices updated and to monitor any official guidance from Apple. Additionally, exploring alternative apps or dialing back on non-essential features can temporarily alleviate battery concerns until a permanent fix is deployed.

Given the impact on operational efficiency, organisations could review their technology dependency and prepare contingency plans, perhaps safeguarding against potential downtime and maintain business continuity.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The ongoing battery drain issue with Apple Watches may seem peripheral, nevertheless it is a reminder for businesses to understand the vulnerabilities within their tech infrastructure. As we wait for the definitive fix from Apple, companies might wish to communicate with employees about managing and troubleshooting all their devices to maintain productivity.

Specific to this particular watch issue, businesses might want to evaluate the necessity of certain applications like “MobyFace,” which have been identified as potential contributors to the battery drain. Removing or updating specific apps may provide temporary relief, which is vital for businesses that use Apple Watches for critical functions like health monitoring, on-the-go communication, or logistical tracking.

For tech-reliant businesses, this scenario also underscores the importance of maintaining diverse platforms and not depending on a single manufacturer or software ecosystem. By doing so, they can navigate around such specific device issues with minimal disruption to their operations. Additionally, keeping abreast of tech forums and support networks for early identification of such issues can help mitigate risks before they escalate into business-critical problems.

Research from Sharp shows that unsecured printers have been the cause of cyber-attacks for one-fifth of European SMBs, and for one half of public sector organisations.
Despite the office printer being an under the radar weak spot for cyber-attacks like phishing, malware, and computer viruses, fewer than a quarter of UK SMBs report educating their employees about either scanner or printer security.
Sharp reports that the most common printer vulnerabilities which lead to the attacks are the use of default passwords, unsecured network connections, and outdated firmware.
The advice to SMBs is to keep software for scanners and printers updated, regularly back up data, and to encourage a consistent security policy across teams working from multiple locations.

A new £36 million UK government project is to use data centre waste heat to provide heating and hot water to 10,000 new homes and 250,000 square metres of commercial space in London.

Using Heat From Data Centres 

Data centres in our digital society and cloud-based business world now play a crucial role in supporting countless industries, businesses and services. However, the increasing demands upon them mean that getting enough power across to them plus finding ways to provide effective cooling and dealing with the surplus heat generated are two major challenges.

The new project, therefore, will provide a way to re-distribute some of the surplus heat so that it benefits the community, advances sustainability, and supports London’s efforts to reach net zero city by 2030.

Heat Network 

The £36 million funding award will support the commercialisation and construction of a district heat network scheme that is expected to deliver 95GWh of heat across 5 phases between 2026 and 2040.

The Old Oak Development 

The new, major urban brownfield regeneration project has been named ‘The Old Oak Development’ because it includes the Old Oak HS2 and Elizabeth Line interchange areas and will be operated by the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation in the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Brent, and Ealing. The Old Oak Development, which covers three London Boroughs, and a brownfield development, and which will create 22,000 new jobs, has been enabled thanks to a wider £65m award from the government’s Green Heat Network Fund (GHNF) to five projects across the UK.

Data Centre Heat Delivered Via Plastic Ambient Network 

The scheme will involve harnessing/recycling the surplus heat from two (as yet unnamed) data centres within the Old Oak/Park Royal area. The data centres will supply ‘low grade’ waste heat (i.e. between 20°C [68°F] and 35°C [95°F] ) via a plastic “ambient” network. The network will supply heat pumps that raise the temperature to Low Temperature Hot Water “LTHW” which will be piped via a traditional steel network to a mixture of new and existing residential buildings.

David Lunts, OPDC’s Chief Executive said of the scheme: “Recycling the massive amounts of wasted heat from our local data centres into heat and energy for local residents, a major hospital and other users is an exciting and innovative example of OPDC’s support for the mayor’s net zero ambitions. 

We are excited to be leading the way in developing low carbon infrastructure, supporting current and future generations of Londoners in Old Oak and Park Royal to live more sustainably.” 

Jo Streeten, Managing Director, Buildings + Places – Europe and India, AECOM re-iterated the importance and benefits of the project, saying: “This is a fantastic opportunity for the new communities emerging within the OPDC area to lead the way in how our cities can operate more sustainably, by using the waste heat sourced from data centres.”  

Previous Data Centre Controversy 

This positive news for homes and business contrasts with reports from July last year that data centres’ huge power demands were putting such acute pressure on the west London grid, that new home-building projects had to be halted because not enough power could be sent to substations, i.e. local data centres were using all the power.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation? 

How to deal with the heat produced by the ever-growing demand on and for new data centres, particularly since generative AI chatbots came along is a significant issue. This project, therefore, is an example of a way to put the heat to good use for the community and businesses rather than wasting it, thereby providing hopefully cheaper and abundant supplies of heat (albeit in a limited area), giving a greener and more sustainable way to heat homes and businesses, plus helping to meet London’s ambitious target to become a net zero city by 2030.

That said, although the local West London data centres can provide surplus heat for the project, as concerns from last year show, their huge energy requirements in the first place is a problem in itself both in how to supply it in a greener way and in the negative impact on local area housing developments, i.e. local data centres using so much power that demand for new home projects can’t be met.

This scheme, however, is one of many new, innovative, and welcome ways around the world to use the surplus heat from data centres for homes and businesses, although tackling the initial issues of how to meet data centres’ enormous power demands with cleaner and more sustainable energy and not just relying on offsetting, and finding effective cooling solutions for data centres remain major challenges.

If you’ve written content such as blog posts, articles etc that you’d like to check thoroughly for any mistakes and hear more clearly how it sounds being read back, try using Google Translate. Here’s how.

– Go to Google Translate.

– Copy and paste your content (up to 5,000 characters) into the left-hand window and select English as the language.

– Click on the speaker (‘Listen’) icon in the bottom left of the left-hand window.

– Listen to your content being read back, keeping an ear out for any changes you’d like to make.

The so-called ‘Batterygate’ iPhone throttling case has been given the go-ahead by UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal which could mean a near $1 billion (£853 million) damages payout to affected Apple customers.

What Is ‘Batterygate’? 

Batterygate refers to a 2017 software update to iPhones by Apple that customers reported had slowed older iPhones down. It was alleged by some at the time that this had been an intentional move designed to motivate customers to buy a new battery or a new iPhone.

Which iPhones? 

The older models of iPhone (released between 2014 and 2016) affected by slowing following the update were the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone SE.

Claims Gained Momentum

Claims by customers that their iPhones have been slowed by the update were supported by comparative performance tests of different models of the iPhone 6S on Reddit and Technology website Geekbench.

As customers’ concerns mounted and received more press, Apple publicly admitted that its software update was responsible for the slowing, Apple apologised to customers in January 2018, and in 2020 agreed to pay $113m (£85m) in the hope of putting an end to the ‘Batterygate’ scandal.

Also, in France in early 2020, Apple was fined $27 million by the country’s consumer watchdog for throttling the battery on older iPhones and it’s been reported that Apple had many (66) smaller batterygate lawsuits against it in the US, settling for $500 million in 2020, and agreeing (in a separate case) to pay out $113 million to 34 US States for the throttling of iPhone 6 and 7 devices.

Power Management Tool 

Apple’s explanation of the iPhone update was that it was a power management tool to help combat performance issues and to help prolong the life of customer devices by managing their ageing lithium-ion batteries and preventing the inconvenience of a sudden and unexpected shutdown. Apple said (in 2018) that it would never intentionally “degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.”

Justin Gutmann’s Lawsuit 

However, in 2022, consumer champion Justin Gutmann filed a lawsuit against Apple over the matter. In the lawsuit Mr Gutman claimed that hardware used by Apple in seven affected iPhone models couldn’t cope with the demands of the device’s processor and operating system. Mr Gutmann argued that Apple introduced the software tool in a concealed way to hide the fact that iPhone batteries may not have been able to run the latest iOS software at the time.

Mr Gutmann also alleged that the “power management tool” pushed as part of the iPOS update had slowed the performance of their phones leading to many owners having to pay for replacement batteries or buy new phones. Mr Gutmann alleged that using the update to force people to pay for replacement batteries or entirely new phones amounted to Apple exploiting its market dominance in the UK. It was alleged that Apple’s apology and offer of a payout were essentially a plan to save Apple the cost of having to recall products and provide replacement batteries, by making users seek to buy their own new batteries or new iPhones after noticing a slowdown (following the update).

Mr Gutmann, therefore, decided to launch his own lawsuit, seeking around £768m (now £850m) in damages for up to 25 million UK iPhone users.

Case To Go Ahead 

Now, for the latest development in ‘Batterygate’ Mr Gutmann’s near $1 billion lawsuit on behalf of the affected owners has been cleared to proceed to court by UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal.

With around 25 million customers affected, if the case doesn’t go Apple’s way, all the affected owners will be entitled to a compensation payout from Apple for each model of iPhone that they owned that was subject to slowing caused by the update.

In its summary, The Competition Appeal tribunal highlights how the collective proceedings order (CPO): “seeks to combine, on an opt-out basis, the claims of consumers and business entities who have purchased, or were gifted, certain Apple iPhone models in particular iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus (“Affected iPhones”)”.  It also highlights how “Apple’s application to strike out the claim was dismissed” (Apple tried to have the case thrown out), and that the Tribunal has now “decided that the requirements of a CPO are met in this case.” 

The Tribunal did, however, also note that “aspects of the claim lack clarity” which it says, “impacts both the questions of the existence of abuse and the manner in which loss to the class is to be assessed.”  In other words, there’s likely to be some room for Apple’s lawyers (backed by the huge resources of the company) to mount a persuasive argument against the allegations made in the lawsuit.

Following the news that the lawsuit has been given permission in the UK, Mr Guttmann has been quoted as saying: “I’m heartened that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has given the nod for our groundbreaking claim to proceed to a full trial. This paves the way for millions of consumers, who were left paying for battery replacements or new phone models, to receive the compensation they deserve.”  

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Batterygate has been a blot on Apple’s reputation that has been hanging around for years now, resulting in it having to settle many claims in the US already and pay a £27 million fine in France. Although Apple is a multi-trillion-dollar company with considerable financial and legal resources, it has been (and could still be) quite an expensive episode for the company, plus the fact that it’s paid out (settled) with many in the US could point to the fact that it may lose or may agree a sizeable settlement in the UK.

The UK lawsuit which has just been given the go-ahead, and which rests on whether Apple essentially exploited its market dominance in the UK could, therefore, potentially see 25 million UK iPhone users get compensation without having to take any individual action (it’s an opt-out claim on their behalf) and see Apple possibly pay as much as $1.6 billion ($1 billion / £853 is just the midpoint figure).

With Apple (a company that makes 80 per cent of its revenue from new devices) just launching its new iPhone 15 (which had an overheating issue that required an update), it may be very keen for batterygate to disappear as soon as possible which the settling of this lawsuit may be another major step in achieving. What with the iPhone 15 overheating issue, iPhone 12 sales recently being banned in France over radiation fears, and the newly launched iOS 17 needing quick fix for three critical vulnerabilities, Apple may feel that it needs a break from very public bad news stories.

All that said, however, at the heart of this case are millions of owners whose expensive vital communication devices were suddenly slowed, causing them considerable inconvenience, perhaps causing stress and costing them money to find replacement batteries or even going to expense of buying a new phone. It wouldn’t be the first time that a giant, dominant tech company has been accused of exploiting its market dominance at the expense of customers, and it now remains to be seen whether affected UK customers in this case are finally entitled to compensation and whether Apple will receive another blow to its reputation in the final rounds of batterygate.

Following the UK government hosting the first major global summit on AI safety at historic Bletchley Park, we look at some of the key outcomes and comments.

Summit 

The UK hosted the first major global AI Safety Summit on the 1 and 2 November at Bletchley Park, the historic centre of the UK’s WWII code breaking operation, where the father of modern computer science Alan Turing worked. The summit brought together international governments (of 28 countries plus the EU), leading AI companies, civil society groups and experts in research.

The aims of the summit were to develop a shared understanding the risks of AI, especially at the frontier of development, and to discuss how they can be mitigated through internationally coordinated action, and of the opportunities that safe AI may bring.

Some notable attendees included Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US vice president Kamala Harris, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, and Wu Zhaohui, Chinese vice minister of science and tech.

Key Points 

The two-day summit, which involved individual speakers, panel discussions, and group meetings covered many aspects of AI safety. Some of the key points to take away include:

– UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced in his opening speech that he and US Vice President Kamala Harris had already decided that the US and UK will establish world-leading AI Safety Institutes to test the most advanced frontier AI models. Mr Sunak said the UK’s Safety Institute will develop its evaluations process in time to assess the next generation of models before they are deployed next year.

– Days before the summit (thereby setting part of the agenda for the summit), US President Joe Biden issued an executive order requiring tech firms to submit test results for powerful AI systems to the US government prior to their release to the public.  At the summit, in response to this, UK tech secretary, Michelle Donelan, made the point that this may not be surprising since most of the main AI companies are based in the US.

– The U.S. and China, two countries often in opposition, agreed to find global consensus on how to tackle some of the complex questions about AI, such as how to develop it safely and regulate it.

– In a much-publicised interview with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, 𝕏’s Elon Musk described AI as “the most disruptive force in history” and said that “there will come a point where no job is needed”. Mr Musk added: “You can have a job if you wanted to have a job for personal satisfaction. But the AI would be able to do everything.”  Mr Musk said that as a result of this: “One of the challenges in the future will be how do we find meaning in life.” It was also noted by some that Mr Musk had been using his X platform to mock politicians at the AI summit ahead of his headlining interview with the UK Prime Minister. Mr Musk’s comments were perhaps nor surprising given that he was one of the many signatories to an open letter earlier in the year calling for a moratorium on the development of AI more advanced than OpenAI’s GPT-4 software. That said, Mr Musk has just announced the launch of a new AI chatbot called ‘Grok,’ a rival to ChatGPT and Bard, which has real-time knowledge of the world via the 𝕏 platform, and Mr Musk says has been “designed to answer questions with a bit of wit and has a rebellious streak.” 

– As highlighted by Ian Hogarth, chair of the UK government’s £100m Frontier AI Taskforce, “there’s a wide range of beliefs” about the severity of the most serious risks posed by AI, such as the catastrophic risks of technology outstripping human ability to safeguard society (the existential risk). As such, despite the summit, the idea that AI could wipe out humanity remains a divisive issue. For example, on the first day of the summit, Meta’s president of global affairs and former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said that AI was caught in a “great hype cycle” with fears about it being overplayed.

– Different countries are moving at different speeds with regards to the regulatory process around AI. For example, the EU started talking about AI four years ago and is now close to passing an AI act, whereas other countries are still some way from this point.

Criticism 

Although the narrative around the summit was that it was a great global opportunity and step in the righty direction, some commentators have criticised the summit as being a missed opportunity for excluding workers and trade unions, and for simply being an event that was dominated by the already dominant big tech companies.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The speed at which AI technology is moving, mostly ahead of regulation, and with its opportunities and threats (which some believe to be potentially catastrophic), and the fact that no real global framework for co-operation in exploring and controlling AI made this summit (and future ones), inevitable and necessary.

Although it involved representatives from many countries, to some extent it was overshadowed in the media by the dominant personality representing technology companies, i.e. Elon Musk. The summit highlighted divided opinions on the extent of the risks posed by AI but did appear to achieve some potentially important results, such as establishing AI Safety Institutes, plus the US agreeing with China on something for a change. That said, although much focus has been put on the risks posed by AI, it’s worth noting that for the big tech companies, many of whose representatives were there, AI is something they’re heavily invested in as the next major source of revenue and to compete with each other, and that governments also have commercial, as well as political interest in AI.

It’s also worth noting critics’ concerns that the summit was really a meeting of the already dominant tech companies and governments and not workers, many of whom may be most directly affected by continuing AI developments. With each week, it seems, there’s a new AI development, and whether concerns are over-hyped (as Nick Clegg suggests) or fully justified, nobody really knows as yet.

Many would agree, however, that countries getting together to focus on the issues and understand the subject and its implications and agree on measures that could mitigate risks and maximise the opportunities and benefits of AI going forward is positive and to be expected at this point.