Nature, Published online: 10 August 2026; doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10989-4
Learning millisecond protein dynamics from what is missing in NMR spectra
Long before chemistry was a formal science, humans were experimenting with substances to solve problems, cure illnesses and make money. In his book "The Age of Alchemy: How Early Innovators Shaped Modern Chemistry" (Profile Books, 2026), author Kit Chapman, a science journalist and honorary researcher at Falmouth University in the U.K., traces how this ancient, protoscientific tradition shaped the world.
From our ancestors' early use of fire to some accidental — and disastrous — pyrotechnics in the 14th-century French court of Charles VI, Chapman reveals how early innovations across the world paved the way for modern science.
Live Science spoke with Chapman about his book, which has been short-listed for the 2026 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize.
Read an excerpt: 'These were harder than any other blades, cut sharper and cost more': How ancient Sri Lankans created steel of legends by harnessing monsoons
Hannah Osborne: The book is full of brilliant historical anecdotes that bring all of these alchemy breakthroughs into context. What was your favorite one and why?
Kit Chapman: I mean, you can't go wrong with a man trying to turn his own urine into gold, I think. Hennig Brand [who accidentally discovered phosphorus in the 17th century] was one of my early touchstones. I've known about this story for a while. I've always thought, "How can I get this into a book? What's the link?" Obviously alchemy provides this fantastic base. He bankrupted two wives to try and fund his 1,500-gallon [5,700 liters] urine habit — and then he gets something [phosphorous], against the odds.
This is the first element we can actually put a name to. This is the first person we can say actually discovered a chemical element, and it's an alchemist in the purest sense of the word. Then, of course, he tries to keep it secret. He sells it, eventually, to a friend, and his urine goes on tour around Europe, showing the kings and queens this glowing pee, before suddenly, [chemist and philosopher] Robert Boyle actually works out exactly what's going on.
That, to me, sort of encompassed everything I was hoping for in the book. There's a fantastic story there that's about human connection. There's the unraveling of mythology, and theology and belief, and starting to look at science. But there's also real practical stuff going on there. He didn't know what he was doing. He just didn't know why he was doing it, and that I found fascinating.
HO: You make the point that these people weren't thinking, "Oh, I'm going to do chemistry." How important is that for understanding how these early innovations shaped modern knowledge of how things work?
KC: I think that's essential. We often look at science as something separate from the real world, and one of the things that I really wanted to do with this book was to illustrate that science is going on in every profession. It's going on in every home, continuously; it's going on in our bodies continuously. It's everywhere.
Science is a way to understand what's going on in the world. It is not a separate thing from culture, from belief, from trade, from globalization, from discovery, from just getting on with life. I wanted to bring in the potters, the weavers, the bakers, the urine salesmen — which was an entire thing that I didn't really know I had to go down. I found it fascinating.
And, of course, [there are] artisans. When we start looking at the first actual chemistry that's being done, it is people trying to create beautiful works of art, perfumes, things like that. It moves away from survival and into this ecstatic beauty, and that, to me, encompasses what I love about the history of science. It's bringing all of these threads together and making discoveries not necessarily where we think we're going to find them.
HO: You mentioned the beauty of it all, and the perfume. One of the chapters I really enjoyed was the first chemist who was a female perfume maker in ancient Assyria.
KC: Tappūtī Bēlet-ekallim. The fascinating thing is that the only reason we know her name is that she put it down in cuneiform. She wrote it down. She may well have been a slave; perfume makers were often slaves. She was certainly a woman who was working in the palace. She was working with another woman whose name, unfortunately, we've lost to time.
What I find fascinating is that we now have this person who was one of the working class, one of the underdogs, slaving for a week to make this potion that she wrote down because the recipe is incredibly detailed. And we remember her name, but we have no recollection of the lord or lady that she was actually making it for. It's kind of class warfare throughout the centuries.
HO: I found the extreme sort of secrecy really striking — that so many of these ancient texts were lost because they were being hidden. But then you also have the fall of civilizations, so we've lost all this knowledge.
KC: It's this combination of, as you mentioned, hiding the recipes because they are trade secrets. If you look at the first alchemy book that we actually know of — "Physika Kai Mystika" — it literally translates as "natural and secret questions" or trade secrets. These were craftsmen, and, of course, they didn't want to share it with rival craftsmen. If you've got a really good recipe for making something look like gold, you want to keep that to yourself.
They use these code words — and that went all the way through into what we think of as alchemy, that sort of Renaissance period where they're talking about taking the fiery sword from the belly of the dragon, which is just wonderful and descriptive.
But you also have things like Emperor Diocletian destroying the texts in Alexandria in 300 A.D. Why did he do it? Because it was a matter of survival for him. Twenty-five of his predecessors were murdered by their own guards or died of plague and things like that — horrible fates. He wanted to avoid that, and the idea that [someone] could turn something into gold terrified him. It would debase his currency, so it always brings in that politics. It brings in human nature and human curiosity.
HO: Do you think there are still things we're yet to discover from alchemy from the past?
KC: Yeah, without question. Whether or not we're going to discover some kind of new, groundbreaking technology that's going to change the world, I can't see that happening. But the one thing we could see is the use of natural products in a way that we hadn't necessarily thought [of].
A great example of that is [Nobel Prize-winning chemist] Tu Youyou and the discovery of artemisinin compounds [from the] qinghao [plant], which comes from a Chinese alchemist's herbal remedies book, essentially 1,700 years ago. The fact that the best defense we have against malaria, the best antimalarials possible, comes from this ancient alchemical source indicates that there's probably more to find.
There is almost certainly more to find in terms of how they [ancient alchemists] used recipes, how they would try and make gold. Their understanding of the world is something that we don't necessarily have a full grasp of, and we're still piecing it together. There's some wonderful work being done by Matteo Martinelli and others looking at the history of, particularly of Western alchemy emerging in Egypt.
We also have things like Greek fire. We have a pretty good idea how they did it, but if you're looking for what the exact recipe [is], we're still not 100% sure.
HO: It's interesting now, watching modern equivalents taking place. We still, to an extent, try to guard our own knowledge.
KC: Yeah, we do, and I think it's actually a pernicious thing in science. We have this publish-or -perish mentality, which is that if we don't get the paper out first, obviously we lose the patent, but wider than that, we lose the kudos. There's this kind of necessity to kind of hide things. You hear about all kinds of shenanigans — a reviewer delaying a paper until their paper comes out, things like that, all this kind of naughtiness going on.
We've got to recognize that science has moved on certainly from the "Great Man" idea. We're now working collaboratively in teams. That is the only way that modern science gets done. The second, if there is one lesson from the book, it's that if you try and hide science, you delay progress.
If you look at the traditional story of science, we talk about Europe. Occasionally, we might bring in China. But India, Africa, Mesoamerica, South America, North America — every single continent was having scientific discoveries and developments.
The moment you actually start spreading ideas, the real ignition for me for the Renaissance and for what becomes chemistry, is the printing press. It's the fact that ideas can then be shared and accessed by everybody. The moment we start realizing that science is a global endeavor, that everyone can do it — man, woman, child, it doesn't matter your nationality, [it] doesn't matter your ethnic ethnicity, it's for everybody — the sooner we're going to start seeing some major progress that we otherwise wouldn't make.
HO: We see loads of the advances in chemistry and alchemy within civilizational melting pots. What were some of the biggest surprises to you when you were researching the book?
KC: One thing that really annoyed me was, looking through textbooks, you can look at who made zinc, and you come up with a name that came from the 1700s, or how platinum was discovered — that's a fantastic example. Platinum was discovered by a conquistador who noticed that some natives were wearing platinum. But, of course, he didn't discover it; it was discovered by the Indigenous populations.
The amount of science that came out of Mesoamerica, Central America, and the way that science was also being developed in India, it's just kind of completely overlooked. If you look at the traditional story of science, we talk about Europe. Occasionally, we might bring in China. But India, Africa, Mesoamerica, South America, North America — every single continent was having scientific discoveries and developments.
They weren't necessarily developments that we think of in terms of leading to chemistry, but they were dealing with social problems that they had at the time. They were tackling what was in front of them, and we always need to remember when we're looking at history to look at the context of the discoveries.
HO: Which breakthrough did you think was most impressive in terms of the materials or facilities that were available?
KC: One thing that I found sort of striking was, there's a chap called Paracelsus who is absolutely fascinating, absolutely bonkers. Paracelsus is, for me, the archetypical alchemist because he was certainly trying to revitalize medicine and get rid of humor theory and come up with all these ideas. [Editor's note: Humor theory is the idea that human health and temperament were related to four fluids in the body — black and yellow bile, blood and phlegm.] But he also believed that mermaids were real and that they were just out to steal men's souls.
He was a drunk, he had a broadsword, and yet he's the guy that was able to combine what we think of as the traditional herbalist role and the doctors. At that point, doctors weren't even touching patients. They believed that the true skill of a medical man was that you didn't even need to examine a patient; you could just sort of look at them and you'd know what was wrong. He [Paracelsus] was able to say, "No, that's not right; you need to actually test things, and you need to try things." The moment we actually combine those two different threads together is when we actually started to get what becomes of modern medicine. The number of lives that saves is incalculable, so I think that that's one of the great moments.
The other one that always comes to me is Antoine Lavoisier in the French Revolution. He made several great discoveries — the fact that matter can only be changed; it can't be destroyed [at least at low energies]. The idea that if you take something, then obviously there's got to be components to that; you're not making it out of thin air. And coming up with a list of elements in the French Revolution or just before the French Revolution, unfortunately dies, from the guillotine [when Lavoisier was executed].
That, for me, was when we started to get true chemistry. That's when all of the magic is dispelled. I think he [Lavoisier] is, for me, the French equivalent of Isaac Newton. He's incredible.
HO: For you personally, throughout researching and writing the book, what was your biggest takeaway and what was the biggest surprise?
KC: My biggest takeaway is that science happens everywhere continuously through everyone. I traveled around the world for this book; I went to pretty much all of the continents. I didn't go down to Australia; that's about it. Wherever you go, there are discoveries being made. There are people who are trying to make their worlds better.
Science is not for this elite group; it's for everyone. One of the things I try to do with this book is to show people that even if you think that science isn't for you, it absolutely is; you're doing science continuously.
There've been so many [surprises]. One of the things — this is purely because of the way that I was taught and these inherent biases that we have — but it's so easy to overlook the role of women. When you start delving into the role of women in science … You've mentioned Tappūtī; we also have Mary the Jewess. Throughout the Renaissance, we have people like Caterina Sforza and [the] very famous Queen Christina of Sweden, which I didn't mention in the book because I just didn't have space.
The one shocker for me is this book "The Secrets of Isabella Cortese," which was a man pretending to be a woman to sell his science book. For me, [it] just kind of unravels this whole idea that science isn't for everyone.
This interview has been condensed and edited lightly for clarity.
"Age of Alchemy" is a fascinating and funny dive into chemistry long before chemistry existed. It captures the ingenuity of humans across cultures and time, revealing how ultimately the work of these early innovators would eventually meld into modern science.
Apple Health data can now move between the Health app and Google Health on an iPhone. The connection lets Google Health import supported information recorded by an iPhone, Apple Watch, and compatible apps. The latest Google Health update can also send supported Fitbit information to Apple Health.
This two-way connection is useful for people who wear a Fitbit but prefer Apple’s Health app as the central place for viewing activity, sleep, steps, and other wellness information. It also reduces the need for third-party synchronization apps.
The feature requires a recent version of Google Health. Google began introducing support for sending data back to Apple Health with Google Health version 5.05. Because app updates can roll out gradually, the new sharing options may not appear until the latest version reaches your account.
The Fitbit app became Google Health in 2026. Existing Fitbit users should find that the installed app has changed its name and design after updating. Fitbit accounts must also be moved to an adult Google Account to use the redesigned service.
Google says the Apple Health connection requires iOS 16.4 or later. The iPhone must have internet access while the connection is being created.
Settings > General > About > iOS Version
Install the latest compatible iOS update if the phone is running an older release.
Settings > General > Software Update
Next, confirm that Google Health is current. Version 5.05 or later is required for the newer option that sends supported Google Health and Fitbit information to Apple Health.
App Store > Profile Picture > Available Updates > Google Health > Update
If Google Health does not appear under Available Updates, search for the app manually. The App Store page may show an Update button if a newer release is available.
App Store > Search > Enter Google Health > Google Health (Fitbit)
People who previously used Fitbit should sign in with the Google Account connected to their Fitbit information. Creating a different account may produce an empty Google Health profile.
Connecting the apps allows Google Health to read supported information from Apple Health. This can include data collected by the iPhone, Apple Watch, and other apps that already share information with Apple Health.
Google Health > Connections > Apps and Services > Apple Health > Get Started
Depending on the Google Health version and interface shown on the iPhone, Connections may appear behind the profile icon.
Google Health > Profile Icon > Partner Apps > Apple Health
Google Health will display a consent screen explaining the connection. Read the information before continuing.
Sync Google Health With Apple Health > Agree
The iPhone will then display Apple’s health permission screen. This screen lets you decide which information Google Health can read.
Apple Health Permission Screen > Turn All Categories On > Allow
You do not have to share every available category. Selecting individual permissions provides more control over sensitive health information.
Apple Health Permission Screen > Select Each Health Category > Allow
Google Health can import supported information such as steps, distance, active energy, exercise records, routes, sleep sessions, sleep stages, heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, blood oxygen, respiratory rate, body temperature, weight, body fat percentage, water, nutrition information, and some cycle-tracking data.
Available categories depend on the devices and apps connected to Apple Health. An iPhone may provide steps and walking information, while an Apple Watch can contribute heart rate, workouts, sleep, and other measurements supported by the model.
After the permissions are approved, Google Health should confirm that the connection is complete.
Google Health Confirmation Screen > Done
New Apple Health information should begin appearing automatically in Google Health. Google has said that imported data can be used across relevant Google Health metrics, although not every external data type is used for every calculation.
Google Health > Health > Select a Metric
Google Health may display information from several connected sources together. Its value for a metric can differ slightly from the number shown by Apple Health because the apps may process available data differently.
Google Health version 5.05 adds the reverse direction that many iPhone and Fitbit users previously lacked. Supported information recorded through Fitbit can now be written into Apple Health.
Before enabling this option, make sure the Fitbit is properly connected to Google Health. Fitbit devices normally synchronize automatically throughout the day when Bluetooth is available and the wearable is near the iPhone.
Google Health > Profile Icon > Devices > Select Your Fitbit
The device page should show the wearable, its battery level, and its most recent synchronization time. Opening Google Health can also prompt a nearby Fitbit to transfer recently collected information.
Once the wearable is updating Google Health correctly, open the Apple Health connection settings.
Google Health > Profile Icon > Partner Apps > Apple Health
The interface may use Apps and Services instead of Partner Apps on some versions.
Google Health > Connections > Apps and Services > Apple Health
Follow the prompts for sharing Google Health information with Apple Health. The iPhone may display separate permissions for data that Google Health can read and data that it can write.
Apple Health Permission Screen > Allow Google Health to Write > Select Health Categories > Allow
Google says supported information can include exercise records, steps, sleep, vitals, and other health data. The exact selection can vary according to the Fitbit model, region, Google Health version, and information stored in the account.
Selecting every category is convenient, but it can create overlapping sources when an iPhone, Apple Watch, and Fitbit record the same type of activity. Choose only the categories you want Google Health to add.
A person who uses a Fitbit mainly for sleep, for example, can allow sleep information while leaving steps disabled. Someone who wears a Fitbit instead of an Apple Watch may prefer to enable steps, workouts, heart rate, sleep, and other supported categories.
Apple Health keeps permission controls on the iPhone. You can change them after the first connection without deleting either app.
Health > Profile Picture > Privacy > Apps > Google Health
The page shows the categories Google Health is permitted to read or update. Turn off any category you no longer want to share.
Some iOS versions provide the same controls through the Sharing tab.
Health > Sharing > Apps and Services > Google Health
Turning off a permission stops future sharing for that category. It does not necessarily remove information that has already been written to Google Health or Apple Health.
The Google Health app also provides controls for the connection.
Google Health > Connections > Apps and Services > Connected > Apple Health
If Google Health displays a message that new data types are available, open the connection and approve the additional categories you want to use. Newly supported information is not automatically shared without permission.
An iPhone, Apple Watch, and Fitbit can record similar information at the same time. Apple Health keeps each source attached to its data and uses a priority order when presenting combined measurements.
You can inspect the sources contributing to a category and choose which one Apple Health should prefer.
Health > Search > Activity > Steps > Data Sources and Access
The screen shows the apps and devices that provide step records. If Google Health, an Apple Watch, and the iPhone all appear, you can adjust their priority.
Health > Search > Activity > Steps > Data Sources and Access > Edit > Drag Sources Into the Preferred Order > Done
Move the source you trust most toward the top. Apple Health generally gives higher priority to sources placed above others when similar records overlap.
Repeat the same process for other categories if their totals do not look right. Exercise, sleep, active energy, and distance can each have their own sources and permissions.
Synchronization is not always immediate. A Fitbit first sends its information to Google Health, and Google Health then writes supported records to Apple Health. Bluetooth availability, Background App Refresh, internet access, and battery-saving behavior can affect this process.
Begin by opening Google Health with the Fitbit close to the iPhone. Wait for the device to complete its normal synchronization before checking Apple Health.
If Apple Health information is missing from Google Health, confirm that the connection remains active.
Google Health > Connections > Apps and Services > Apple Health
If Google Health displays an error or a request for new permissions, follow the message shown on the screen.
Background App Refresh can help Google Health update when the app is not open.
Settings > General > Background App Refresh > Google Health > On
Bluetooth must remain available for a Fitbit to communicate with the iPhone.
Settings > Bluetooth > Bluetooth On
If the connection continues to fail, disconnecting and reconnecting Apple Health may restore the permission request.
Google Health > Connections > Apps and Services > Apple Health > Disconnect > Confirm Disconnect
Disconnecting the service does not automatically remove every permission already stored by Apple Health. Review the Google Health entry in the Health app if you want to remove those permissions as well.
Health > Profile Picture > Privacy > Apps > Google Health > Turn Off All
After reconnecting the apps, allow time for new records to appear. Previously stored information may not transfer in exactly the same way as activity recorded after the connection was enabled.
You can inspect an individual entry to confirm whether it came from Google Health, a Fitbit, an Apple Watch, or the iPhone.
Health > Search > Select a Health Category > Show All Data > Select the Latest Entry
The post How to Sync Apple Health Data With Google Health on Your iPhone appeared first on AppleMagazine.
FaceTime Dual Capture is bringing simultaneous front-and-rear camera streaming to video calls in iOS 27, allowing compatible iPhones to show the caller and their surroundings without repeatedly switching between cameras.
The feature expands technology Apple introduced with the iPhone 17 family. Dual Capture already allows the Camera app to record through the Center Stage front camera and a rear camera at the same time. iOS 27 brings a similar capability directly into live FaceTime calls.
During a call, the front camera can continue showing the speaker while the rear camera displays whatever the iPhone is pointing toward. Someone attending a concert can share the performance and remain visible. A parent can show a child playing without disappearing from the conversation. A person asking for technical assistance can remain on screen while directing the rear camera toward the equipment causing the problem.
Dual Capture removes the awkward sequence of switching to the rear camera, showing something, and switching back to continue speaking face to face. Both perspectives remain available inside the same call.
The normal FaceTime camera control changes from a simple front-or-rear choice on supported iPhones. When the caller activates the rear camera, iOS 27 keeps the front camera visible by default.
The main view displays the rear camera feed while a smaller window contains the front camera image. This picture-in-picture arrangement gives the other participant a continuous view of the caller’s reaction, commentary, or explanation.
FaceTime > Start a video call > Tap the Flip button
Tapping the Flip button turns on the rear camera without immediately removing the front view. The other participant begins receiving both perspectives as part of the FaceTime stream.
The caller can disable the front view when it is no longer needed. This provides a conventional rear-camera presentation for situations where the surroundings should occupy the complete image.
FaceTime > Tap the camera view > Disable the front camera
The exact labels and placement may change before the public release of iOS 27 because the feature is still being tested in beta software. Its basic behavior is already established: the Flip control activates the rear camera while retaining the front camera feed.
Dual Capture does not create two independent FaceTime calls. Both images belong to one video stream, so the caller does not need a second account, device, or invitation.
The feature also differs from screen sharing. FaceTime screen sharing transmits applications and interface activity from the iPhone display. Dual Capture transmits live video from two physical cameras.
Apple has limited FaceTime Dual Capture transmission to the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air. Each model includes Apple’s 18MP Center Stage front camera and the Dual Capture capability introduced in the Camera app.
An older iPhone that supports iOS 27 cannot originate a Dual Capture stream. It continues to use the normal option of selecting either the front camera or a rear camera during a call.
Older models can still receive and display a Dual Capture feed when they are running iOS 27. This allows an iPhone 16 or another supported device to see both views transmitted from an iPhone 17, even though it cannot send the same presentation back.
Both participants need iOS 27 for the new FaceTime layout to work as intended. The transmitting device must also be one of the supported iPhone 17-generation models.
This limitation is based on Apple’s official feature support rather than the simple presence of front and rear cameras. Earlier iPhones have camera hardware capable of operating in several multi-camera applications, but Apple has not extended its native Dual Capture implementation to them.
Third-party applications have offered forms of simultaneous multi-camera recording for years through Apple’s developer frameworks. The difference is that iOS 27 integrates the experience into FaceTime, where users can activate it through the familiar camera-switching control.
Describing FaceTime Dual Capture as retro-compatible with the iPhone 17 does not fully explain its relationship with the hardware. The iPhone 17 family introduced Apple’s native Dual Capture recording in 2025, and iOS 27 now gives that existing camera system another purpose.
Inside the Camera app, Dual Capture produces a saved video containing front and rear views. Apple lists support for recording at up to 4K Dolby Vision at 30 frames per second on the iPhone 17.
FaceTime uses the camera pairing for live communication instead. Network quality, bandwidth, device temperature, and FaceTime processing can affect the transmitted resolution, so users should not assume that a call will preserve the Camera app’s maximum 4K recording specification.
The Center Stage front camera also contributes more than resolution. Its square sensor gives the iPhone greater freedom to adjust framing without requiring the device to be physically rotated. Center Stage can help keep the caller positioned inside the smaller front-camera view while the rear camera follows the subject being shared.
That combination makes Dual Capture more useful than placing two untreated camera feeds beside each other. FaceTime can preserve the speaker’s presence while directing most of the screen toward the event, object, or location being discussed.
The feature may require more processing power and energy than an ordinary single-camera call. Running two camera sensors while encoding and transmitting live video can increase battery consumption and device temperature, especially during long calls over cellular data.
Apple has not published separate battery estimates for Dual Capture FaceTime calls. Users planning extended sessions may want access to power and a stable Wi-Fi connection.
FaceTime Dual Capture arrives shortly before Apple’s expected iPhone 18 generation, making it likely to become part of how the company demonstrates the new phones’ camera and communication abilities.
Apple has not announced the iPhone 18 lineup or confirmed its final camera specifications. Compatibility with FaceTime Dual Capture is therefore expected from the software’s “iPhone 17 and newer” positioning, but individual iPhone 18 models should not be treated as confirmed until Apple presents them.
The software release gives existing iPhone 17 owners access without requiring another hardware purchase. That approach also provides Apple with a working FaceTime feature before the next iPhone launch rather than introducing the camera mode and communication interface at the same moment.
Future hardware could improve the experience through faster processors, stronger image stabilization, upgraded sensors, or more efficient video encoding. None of those additions is required for the supported iPhone 17 family, which already contains the camera system needed to transmit both views.
Dual Capture is only one part of the FaceTime update. Apple is also improving video-call quality when the network connection is weak, addressing a problem that becomes especially relevant when two live camera views require transmission. Traditional Chinese support is joining FaceTime Live Captions as well.
The weak-connection improvement may determine how dependable Dual Capture becomes away from Wi-Fi. A feature designed for travel, events, repairs, and outdoor calls needs to tolerate changes in cellular bandwidth without freezing both views or forcing the session to end.
FaceTime Dual Capture remains part of the iOS 27 beta as Apple prepares the public update for September. Apple can still adjust the interface, performance, device requirements, and picture-in-picture behavior before the completed software reaches iPhone 17 owners.
The post FaceTime Dual Capture: iOS 27’s Biggest Video Call Upgrade appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Bonfire series planned for Apple is no longer proceeding at the streaming service, ending the latest attempt to transform Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities into an episodic television drama.
The project had assembled a notable creative team. David E. Kelley was attached to write and executive produce, while The Batman director Matt Reeves was expected to direct the eight-episode adaptation and serve as an executive producer through his 6th & Idaho Productions company.
Warner Bros. Television was producing the series, with Sarah Geismer representing 6th & Idaho and Matthew Tinker participating through David E. Kelley Productions.
According to industry reports, Apple and the creative team were not aligned on the direction of the adaptation. Kelley was also reportedly dissatisfied with how the development process had been handled. The exact source of the disagreement has not been disclosed.
Apple has not announced the project as a formal cancellation, and it never received a public premiere date or cast. Its departure from Apple instead ends one stage of development while leaving Warner Bros. Television with the possibility of taking the adaptation elsewhere.
News of the Bonfire series first emerged in April 2026. Kelley was expected to write the adaptation after working with Apple on Presumed Innocent and Margo’s Got Money Troubles, while Reeves would direct after completing his existing film commitments.
The partnership appeared well suited to a complicated literary adaptation. Kelley has extensive experience turning novels into television dramas, including Big Little Lies, The Lincoln Lawyer, Nine Perfect Strangers, Presumed Innocent, and Wolfe’s A Man in Full.
Reeves brought a different set of strengths. His work on The Batman, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, War for the Planet of the Apes, and Cloverfield demonstrated his ability to handle large casts, morally compromised characters, and cities presented as active elements of the story.
The arrangement also connected Warner Bros. Television with Apple’s preference for recognizable creators and established literary properties. Wolfe’s novel offered a prestigious title, a large ensemble, and a view of New York society that could support a limited-series structure.
The development reportedly lasted only a few months before the creative relationship broke down. No actors had been announced, and there was no indication that cameras were close to rolling.
The absence of production activity makes the development easier to stop than a commissioned series with actors, sets, and crews already under contract. It also means Apple can leave the project without abandoning completed episodes or disrupting a release calendar.
A television project entering development is not the same as a series receiving a complete production order. Writers can prepare scripts, directors can become attached, and studios can negotiate with a streaming service before a final budget or filming commitment is approved.
The Bonfire of the Vanities was widely discussed as an eight-episode Apple adaptation, but Apple never unveiled it through its official press service. The project did not appear with a cast, production date, first-look image, or planned release window.
That distinction makes “stalled” more accurate than suggesting that Apple canceled a finished series. The adaptation remains intellectual property controlled through its rights and production arrangements, but the version developed for Apple has stopped advancing.
Creative alignment can cover several areas, including tone, period setting, episode structure, budget, casting, and how closely a project follows its source. None of those issues has been identified publicly as the specific cause of the disagreement.
The source material presents difficult choices. Wolfe wrote the novel as a detailed portrait of 1980s New York, with Wall Street, tabloid journalism, city politics, race, class, and personal ambition colliding around a single incident.
An adaptation could preserve that period or move the story into a contemporary financial and media environment. Keeping the 1980s setting would retain the social ecosystem Wolfe observed, while modernization would require substantial changes to technology, journalism, policing, politics, and the financial industry.
Reports of creative differences do not establish which approach Apple, Kelley, Reeves, or Warner Bros. preferred. Until one of the parties discusses the project, the disagreement remains undefined.
Published in 1987 after being serialized in Rolling Stone, The Bonfire of the Vanities follows Sherman McCoy, a wealthy bond trader who considers himself a “Master of the Universe.”
McCoy’s protected life begins collapsing after he and his mistress take a wrong turn into the Bronx. Their encounter with two young Black men ends in a hit-and-run, creating an opportunity for journalists, attorneys, politicians, activists, and social climbers to exploit the case.
The novel spreads its attention across several communities and institutions. Its satire depends on the reader observing how each group manipulates the incident while claiming moral authority. That scope gives television more room than a feature film, but it also requires precise control of perspective and tone.
Brian De Palma directed the previous film adaptation, released by Warner Bros. in 1990. Tom Hanks played Sherman McCoy alongside Melanie Griffith, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Kim Cattrall, and F. Murray Abraham.
Despite the cast and an estimated production budget of approximately $47 million, the film earned about $15.6 million domestically. Critics objected to its casting, tonal decisions, and changes to Wolfe’s characters.
The difficult production later became the subject of Julie Salamon’s The Devil’s Candy, a detailed account of how an expensive adaptation made by accomplished filmmakers deteriorated through compromises and conflicting decisions.
The film’s reputation has followed every subsequent effort to revisit Wolfe’s novel. A television version has frequently been proposed as a better format because it can preserve more characters, institutional detail, and social context.
Amazon began developing an eight-episode adaptation in 2016 with Chuck Lorre and Warner Bros. Television. That version was intended to update the story while approaching it through themes of race, class, politics, and media. It never entered production.
Apple’s attempt therefore becomes another chapter in a long development history rather than the first revival since De Palma’s film.
The collapse of this project does not necessarily end David E. Kelley’s relationship with Apple. His adaptation of Presumed Innocent became a major drama for the service, while Margo’s Got Money Troubles expanded his work with the company into comedy-drama.
Large producers and streaming services regularly continue working together after deciding against an individual project. Each adaptation has its own creative, financial, and scheduling demands.
The reported dissatisfaction does introduce uncertainty around whether Kelley would remain involved if Warner Bros. Television places the series with another distributor. Reeves’ position is similarly unknown, particularly because directing all eight episodes would require a substantial scheduling commitment.
Apple can continue expanding its collection of literary adaptations without Bonfire. Its existing slate includes projects derived from novels, nonfiction books, short stories, podcasts, and magazine reporting, often with established filmmakers receiving considerable creative control.
The decision also illustrates how selective Apple can be before production. Projects in development may attract prominent writers and directors without ever becoming Apple Originals available to subscribers.
Warner Bros. Television remains attached as the studio behind the adaptation, giving it a potential route to another streaming service or network. No new buyer, revised creative team, or timetable has been reported for The Bonfire of the Vanities.
The post Bonfire Series Stalls at Apple After Creative Split appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Apple lawsuit against OpenAI has reached its first major procedural challenge, with the ChatGPT developer asking a US federal judge to dismiss allegations that it acquired or used trade secrets taken by former Apple employees.
OpenAI submitted its 31-page dismissal motion on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The filing argues that Apple has not adequately identified protectable trade secrets or alleged facts showing that OpenAI misappropriated confidential information.
Apple filed the case on July 10 against OpenAI, its io Products hardware operation, former Apple Vice President Tang Yew Tan, and former electrical engineer Chang Liu. The complaint accuses the defendants of obtaining information connected to Apple’s product development, manufacturing, components, testing, and supply chain operations.
The allegations have not been proven, and OpenAI denies possessing or seeking Apple’s trade secrets. US District Judge Edward Davila must now decide whether Apple’s complaint contains enough factual detail for the litigation to continue.
OpenAI’s motion focuses initially on how Apple described the information it claims was stolen. According to OpenAI, the complaint relies on generalized product-development categories without identifying the protected information with enough precision.
Trade secret plaintiffs face a difficult balance at the beginning of litigation. Apple must describe the protected material sufficiently to establish a plausible legal claim, but revealing the material publicly could expose the same information it is trying to protect.
Sensitive details can later be handled under seal or through a protective order. At the dismissal stage, however, Apple must still provide enough information for the court to distinguish genuine trade secrets from general engineering knowledge, employee experience, or skills acquired through years of work.
OpenAI argues that Apple has not crossed that threshold. Its motion says the complaint fails to establish ownership of a protectable trade secret and does not plausibly allege that OpenAI acquired, disclosed, or used such information.
The filing also disputes the commercial premise behind Apple’s accusations. OpenAI says it is developing products that are different from Apple’s hardware and has no need or desire to use the iPhone maker’s confidential material.
That position does not settle whether information was taken. A company can potentially misappropriate trade secrets even when its eventual product has a different design. The court’s immediate task is narrower: determining whether Apple has alleged facts that could support its claims if those facts are later proven.
Apple’s complaint centers partly on Chang Liu, who spent eight years working as a senior system electrical engineer at the company before joining OpenAI in January 2026.
Apple alleges that Liu retained an Apple-issued computer and accessed confidential technical information after leaving. It claims he exploited residual authentication access on multiple occasions to obtain internal documents while already working for OpenAI.
OpenAI presents a different explanation. It says Apple employees contacted Liu after his departure and asked him to help locate files needed for ongoing Apple work. The company published redacted messages that it says support this account.
OpenAI argues that Apple’s systems and policies allowed personal and corporate information to become intermingled through iCloud accounts. Former employees, it says, could retain access to Apple files without requesting it or realizing that access remained active.
The motion maintains that Apple cannot treat the foreseeable effects of its own access-management practices as proof that former employees intentionally stole data. Apple, in contrast, alleges that its records document repeated access to restricted information rather than an accidental discovery of lingering permissions.
These competing accounts are likely to become central if the case enters discovery. Authentication logs, downloaded files, device records, internal communications, and employment timelines could establish whether access was deliberate, what information was obtained, and whether it reached anyone working on OpenAI products.
A dismissal motion normally tests whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It is not a trial, and the judge is not expected to resolve every factual disagreement using competing evidence at this point.
Apple separately accuses Tang Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, of seeking confidential information from Apple employees during recruiting conversations.
Tan spent more than 24 years at Apple and worked on products including the iPhone, Apple Watch, AirPods, and iPod. He later helped establish io Products with former Apple design chief Jony Ive and other collaborators. OpenAI acquired the hardware company as part of its effort to create a family of devices built around artificial intelligence.
Apple alleges that Tan used confidential project names, retained internal materials, and encouraged job candidates to discuss unreleased components or bring physical parts to interviews. OpenAI rejects the claim that these interactions formed a coordinated effort to collect Apple secrets.
OpenAI says Tan repeatedly instructed employees that confidential information from previous employers could not be brought into its organization. It also offers an alternative explanation for an Apple offboarding document found in his possession, arguing that Tan retained it to help incoming employees comply with Apple’s departure procedures.
Apple’s position is that the document and recruiting communications must be examined alongside the other alleged conduct. It describes the events as part of a connected campaign rather than isolated employment or administrative issues.
The dispute comes during intense competition for engineers capable of developing consumer AI hardware. Apple alleges that more than 400 former employees have moved to OpenAI, although hiring people from a competitor does not by itself establish trade secret misappropriation.
A company must generally connect recruitment to the acquisition, disclosure, or use of protected information. OpenAI is relying heavily on that distinction, presenting Apple’s lawsuit as an attempt to respond to employee departures and its difficulties competing for AI talent.
OpenAI’s dismissal request arrives shortly after Apple asked the court for a preliminary injunction. Apple wants restrictions imposed while the lawsuit proceeds, arguing that it could suffer harm if its confidential information is used during OpenAI’s hardware development.
The requested relief would prevent OpenAI and the individual defendants from acquiring, accessing, using, or disclosing the alleged trade secrets. Apple has also requested expedited discovery and forensic examination of relevant devices and accounts.
OpenAI says those restrictions are unnecessary because it does not possess or want Apple’s protected information. It has described Apple’s request as based on false information and has offered to cooperate in addressing specific concerns.
The two companies also disagree over their communications before the lawsuit. Apple initially said its concerns had been raised with OpenAI months earlier. OpenAI responded that Apple’s outside lawyers contacted the wrong person after confusing names and incorrectly described a conversation with OpenAI’s general counsel.
OpenAI says Apple did not present the specific accusations before filing the case and that the companies had previously discussed resolving any access issues. Apple has since provided additional information in support of its injunction request, including allegations involving other former employees.
These disputes have moved beyond ordinary court filings. OpenAI published messages and emails on its website to support its version of events, calling Apple’s lawsuit aggressive and poorly investigated. Apple has primarily presented its account through formal legal submissions.
Judge Davila could dismiss some or all of Apple’s claims, deny the motion, or allow Apple to amend its complaint with more specific allegations. Even a dismissal would not necessarily end the case if permission to revise the complaint is granted.
The next scheduled public test is an October 1 hearing covering Apple’s preliminary injunction and request for early discovery. That proceeding may determine whether OpenAI faces immediate limits on its hardware work before the underlying trade secret claims receive a full evidentiary review.
The post Apple Lawsuit: OpenAI Seeks Dismissal of Trade Secrets Case appeared first on AppleMagazine.
The iPhone Ultra price could establish an entirely new tier within Apple’s smartphone range. Current estimates place the company’s first foldable iPhone above $2,000, with some industry forecasts suggesting an average selling price near $2,500 and higher-storage configurations approaching $3,000.
Apple has not confirmed the device, its name, or its retail price. The iPhone Ultra branding also remains unofficial, although it has appeared repeatedly in reports concerning Apple’s planned expansion beyond the Pro and Pro Max levels.
The foldable is expected to join the iPhone 18 Pro family during Apple’s fall hardware cycle. Rather than replacing the iPhone Pro Max, it would sit above it as a separate model built around a book-style design and a display that expands to approximately the size of a small tablet.
A price beyond $2,000 would make it the most expensive iPhone Apple has released. The current iPhone 17 Pro Max starts at $1,199 in the United States, leaving a difference of at least $800 between Apple’s established flagship and the lowest estimates for the foldable.
Recent projections have pushed that gap even wider. Reports citing analyst Ming-Chi Kuo have discussed a possible range between $2,300 and $2,500, while an IDC estimate cited in supply-chain coverage placed the average selling price at approximately $2,500. Storage upgrades could take selected configurations closer to $3,000.
Apple has spent years arranging the iPhone range around a price ladder. Standard models serve the center of the market, while Air and Pro devices address different preferences involving weight, cameras, materials, performance, and display size.
A foldable iPhone would require another level. Its internal display, hinge, structural materials, battery arrangement, and manufacturing tolerances introduce costs that do not exist in a conventional iPhone.
The rumored hardware points to a device intended to combine phone and tablet functions. Reports describe an outer screen measuring about 5.5 inches and an internal display of approximately 7.8 inches. When closed, the product would operate as a compact iPhone. Opening it would provide enough space for larger applications, side-by-side content, expanded video, and an iPad-style software interface.
Apple is reportedly developing interface changes that would let applications take greater advantage of the internal display instead of simply enlarging an iPhone layout. That software work may become one of the main distinctions between the device and existing foldables, particularly if Apple can connect it closely with iPad multitasking conventions.
The hinge is expected to use liquid metal, an amorphous alloy chosen for strength and resistance to deformation. Apple has also reportedly focused on reducing the visible display crease, one of the most recognizable compromises found on current folding phones.
Those elements help explain a premium price without guaranteeing that customers will accept it. A $2,000-plus phone would compete for spending that could otherwise purchase an iPhone and an iPad, a high-end Mac, or several years of conventional smartphone upgrades.
The device would therefore need to offer more than the novelty of a folding screen. Durability, battery life, camera performance, application behavior, repair costs, and long-term display reliability will influence whether buyers view the iPhone Ultra as a versatile computer or an unusually expensive phone.
Rumors suggest Apple may use Touch ID in the side button instead of Face ID. The change would not necessarily represent a retreat from facial authentication across the rest of the iPhone range. A foldable chassis has limited internal space, and eliminating the TrueDepth camera hardware could help Apple manage thickness around the outer and inner displays.
The reported design includes two rear cameras and front-facing cameras accessible in both folded and unfolded positions. That arrangement may leave the iPhone 18 Pro Max with the more extensive photography system, despite the foldable carrying a much higher price.
Such a decision would position the iPhone Ultra around form factor and productivity rather than making it the automatic leader in every specification. Apple has used similar distinctions elsewhere, allowing one product to command a premium for its design while another retains advantages in cameras, battery endurance, or sustained performance.
Display production is another source of expense. Folding OLED panels require flexible materials, protective layers, specialized hinges, and tighter assembly controls. Apple’s reported pursuit of a nearly crease-free screen may increase component costs and reduce early manufacturing yields.
The company is also entering the category after competitors have spent several generations addressing hinge failures, screen damage, dust protection, and application scaling. Arriving later gives Apple access to a more mature supply chain, but its design standards may create additional production challenges.
Industry estimates suggest Apple’s arrival could help raise the average selling price of book-style foldables throughout 2026. Competitors already sell premium folding phones, yet a model priced near $2,500 would push the category further away from mainstream flagship pricing.
Apple Upgrade could make the iPhone Ultra price appear less intimidating at checkout. The Klarna-backed program lets eligible US customers lease selected Apple devices through fixed monthly payments rather than covering the entire retail price upfront.
Current iPhones can be leased for 12 or 24 months. At the end of the term, customers may return the device, move into another eligible Apple product, or pay the remaining amount required to keep it.
That structure can produce lower monthly payments than traditional financing because the customer is not necessarily paying the entire purchase price during the lease. Part of the product’s value remains in the device at the end of the agreement.
A future iPhone Ultra could fit naturally into this model. Its high retail price and expected resale value would give Apple and Klarna room to separate the cost of using the phone for two years from the cost of owning it permanently.
No monthly figure has been announced for the foldable. Apple cannot price an Apple Upgrade lease until it establishes the phone’s retail cost, residual value, eligible term, and trade-in conditions. A simple calculation that divides $2,000 or $2,500 by 24 months would therefore be misleading.
The monthly charge may be considerably lower than a standard purchase installment, but the customer does not automatically own the iPhone after making the scheduled lease payments. Keeping it requires an additional payment based on the remaining value specified by the agreement.
AppleCare+ is also separate from the current Apple Upgrade lease price. That differs from the former iPhone Upgrade Program, which bundled AppleCare+ coverage into its monthly payments. Protection could be particularly relevant for an expensive first-generation foldable containing a flexible display and complex hinge.
Trade-in credit may reduce the monthly charge, while storage selection would push it higher. Sales tax, cellular service, accessories, and optional protection would remain additional costs. Apple Upgrade changes when and how customers pay, but it does not turn a $2,000-plus product into a lower-priced iPhone.
Apple is reportedly preparing millions of foldable units, but production may be heavily weighted toward the final months of 2026 and 2027. Supply-chain estimates have ranged from 7 million to 10 million devices, with different reports using different production periods and assumptions.
The foldable may be announced alongside the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max but reach customers later. That would resemble the 2017 launch of the iPhone X, which was introduced with the iPhone 8 family in September and released in November.
A delayed retail date would give Apple more time to accumulate inventory while preserving the device’s place in its fall presentation. It could also place the iPhone Ultra into the holiday quarter with considerable demand concentrated around a relatively small supply.
High pricing does not necessarily prevent shortages during the first weeks of an Apple product launch. Early adopters, developers, collectors, and customers waiting specifically for an Apple foldable represent a smaller audience than the conventional iPhone market, but they may still outnumber the units available at release.
Apple Upgrade could add another source of demand by replacing the full retail figure with a monthly lease price inside the Apple Store. That presentation may make the phone accessible to customers who would reject a $2,500 purchase while accepting a recurring payment and returning the device later.
Kuo expects only 500,000 to 1 million foldable iPhones to ship during the third quarter, a supply level that could push some deliveries four to six weeks beyond the opening preorder window.
The post iPhone Ultra Price Could Take Apple’s Foldable Beyond $2,000 appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Nature, Published online: 05 August 2026; doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10843-7
Integration of genome-scale CRISPR screening data from traditional cell lines and next-generation cancer models expands the representation of tumour subtypes and genomic alterations in The Cancer Dependency Map.Nature, Published online: 05 August 2026; doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10822-y
A fast, low-error entangling gate for dual-rail cavity erasure qubits preserves a strong error hierarchy, advancing scalable quantum error correction with substantially improved fault-tolerant performance.Despite most Australians supporting clean technology, the campaign against wind and solar infrastructure has proven to be effective, striking a chord with many of those living in remote and rural areas. So how do we bring everyone along on the transition to a renewable energy-focused future? And who’s putting up roadblocks?
The Guardian’s environment and climate correspondent Graham Readfearn joins Reged Ahmad to unpack Australia’s relationship with renewables
Read more:
Continue reading...
© Composite: Carly Earl
© Composite: Carly Earl
© Composite: Carly Earl
Apple Podcasts runs within CarPlay, Apple’s in-car software platform for accessing compatible iPhone apps through a vehicle’s display and controls. CarPlay provides the driving environment, while Podcasts supplies the programs, episodes, library and playback features available inside it.
That combination suits a part of the day that often feels wasted. A commute may be too fragmented for reading or watching something, but it can provide enough uninterrupted time for a news briefing, interview, documentary series or comedy show.
Podcasts also give each journey a different character. The morning drive can offer information before work, while the return trip can provide lighter entertainment or continue a longer story. Drivers are free to choose whether the time should be useful, relaxing or simply less repetitive.
Apple Podcasts appears alongside other compatible audio apps when an iPhone connects to CarPlay. The vehicle display offers access to available episodes and essential controls without reproducing the complete iPhone interface on the dashboard.
The distinction is simple: Apple Podcasts does not create or power CarPlay. It is an audio app designed to operate within the wider CarPlay experience, which also handles navigation, calls, messages and other supported services.
CarPlay reduces podcast playback to the functions most appropriate in a vehicle. Drivers can use the Now Playing screen, CarPlay Dashboard, steering-wheel controls or buttons provided by the vehicle. Available commands can include playing, pausing, jumping back 15 seconds, moving forward 30 seconds and changing playback speed.
Siri provides another way to manage audio while keeping attention on the road. A driver can request a followed show, pause the current episode or continue listening without searching through the display. Support varies according to the vehicle and its controls, but the app remains connected to the iPhone rather than operating as a separate system installed by the automaker.
The interface is especially suitable for spoken audio. Songs can often continue without intervention, while a podcast listener may want to replay an explanation, skip part of an episode or resume a program interrupted earlier. CarPlay keeps those common controls accessible without placing the full Podcasts app in front of the driver.
A regular route creates a predictable amount of listening time. Someone with a 15-minute drive may prefer concise news, business updates or language lessons. A 40-minute journey provides room for detailed interviews, investigative reporting or serialized fiction.
Apple Podcasts includes programs covering education, technology, culture, history, sports, health and entertainment. The variety allows listeners to build different routines around the same drive rather than depending on one radio schedule or repeatedly hearing familiar music.
A morning episode can provide context for events likely to shape the working day. On the way home, comedy and conversational programs can create distance from work before the listener reaches the front door. Neither choice requires treating every available minute as a productivity exercise.
The format can also make traffic less frustrating. A delayed journey remains inconvenient, but an episode gives the driver something continuous to follow as the arrival time changes. Spoken stories can hold attention without asking the driver to look away from navigation or the road.
Apple Podcasts keeps longer programs useful even when they do not fit into one trip. Listening progress can synchronize across compatible devices using the same Apple Account, allowing an episode started at home to continue in the car or resume later on another device.
The safest podcast decision is usually the one made before the car starts moving. Apple Podcasts allows listeners to follow shows, download episodes and arrange a queue on the iPhone in advance. CarPlay can then concentrate on playback instead of discovery.
A prepared queue is useful when several episodes are planned for one journey. The next selection can begin automatically after the current program ends, removing the temptation to search through categories while driving. Listeners can combine a short briefing with a longer interview or place lighter material after a demanding program.
Downloads make the experience more reliable. Saved episodes can continue playing through areas with weak cellular coverage, including rural roads, tunnels and underground parking structures. Downloading through Wi-Fi can also prevent a long daily routine from consuming unnecessary mobile data.
Automatic downloads can keep recent episodes from followed shows ready for the next drive. Storage still requires attention, especially when subscriptions publish frequently, but played downloads can be removed automatically according to the selected Podcasts settings.
Playback speed provides another form of control. Faster playback can help a listener finish a familiar news format within a shorter trip, while normal or slower speeds may suit technical discussions, unfamiliar accents or narrative programs where delivery forms part of the experience.
CarPlay does not create a separate podcast library inside the vehicle. It extends the listening activity already connected to the iPhone, preserving followed shows, saved programs and playback position when the drive ends.
That continuity prevents commute listening from becoming isolated. A listener can discover and prepare episodes on an iPhone, hear part of one through CarPlay and continue later on a Mac or another compatible device. Downloads remain stored on the device that received them, while supported library information and progress can synchronize through the Apple Account.
Commute length can eventually shape a personal programming schedule. A 12-minute daily news show may fit the morning route almost exactly, while a 45-minute interview can cover both directions with the remaining section ready for the following day. The queue can change with the calendar, leaving shorter episodes for busy mornings and deeper programs for the roads that provide enough time to hear them properly.
The post Apple Podcasts Is a Perfect Match for CarPlay appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Climate change's impacts are being felt everywhere, from health and food security to extreme weather, sea level rise and collapsing ecosystems. World leaders have been slow to adapt to the warnings, despite an ever-growing body of evidence showing the compounding risks of greenhouse gas emissions.
But despite fossil fuels remaining the world's primary source of energy and emissions continuing to rise, there are changes afoot.
In his book "Despite it All" (Granta, 2026), author and journalist Fred Pearce looks at the shifts that have taken place over the last 40 years, highlighting how far humanity has come in the green transition. He believes this progress gives us reason to hope that we can eventually overcome the challenges we face today.
Pearce spoke with Live Science about his book, which has been shortlisted for the 2026 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize.
Hannah Osborne: There are a lot of positive environmental stories throughout the book, including those that aren't necessarily being told. Do you think that there is a growing appetite for positive climate news now? And will it help us?
Fred Pearce: I detect a kind of desire to be told something other than it's all hopeless and there's nothing we can do. Some people are therefore saying, "Well, what can I do?" And they're very sort of personal stories about how they can contribute. But also people who think more, if you like, strategically: What can the world do, what can governments do, what, how can we influence that?
I try not to write what I think people want to read. I try to write what I want to say. And it seems to me that we do so many things so badly, whether it's managing our resources or water or handling forests or the climate, or pollution or whatever. We do things so badly that there is a great deal of scope for doing things a lot better. So, we need optimists and we need pessimists. We need pessimists to point out the problems. We need optimists to come up with some solutions or suggest where [there are] half open doors that we can push open.
I wrote this book in that kind of spirit to say "Look, yes, things are bad, yes, I'm not denying that they're bad, but there's an awful lot that we can do about it and in some cases are doing about it." That then divides into whether we're talking about human activity, our technical solutions to climate change. Tech fixes are good, not bad, which is something that can be a hard sell in the environment community sometimes, so I want to stress that.
I went to the Earth Summit 30 years ago where they agreed [upon] the original climate change convention. Back then they said we [need to] prevent dangerous climate change, but they really didn't know much about how to do it. Wind turbines were just, you know, a few masts on a hill in California. Nobody was dealing much in solar power because it was just so expensive. It had been developed for powering satellites and electric cars. Nobody was talking about [it].
We have made quite a lot of progress and it's not fast enough and CO2 emissions are stable, they're not going down. We need to do a hell of a lot more and we may have passed climate tipping points. I'm not denying any of that, but rather than throwing up our hands or saying it's hopeless, let's get on with the tech, let's also recognize that nature is very good at recovering. You destroy a forest, a rainforest, it doesn't mean that it's destroyed forever. It will, given the chance, come back if we give it room. So let's give forests room to recover.
In large parts of the world it's already happening — in Europe, even in North America. Agricultural land is being abandoned, and when it's abandoned nature comes back and not necessarily in the sort of ways that we might think. But nature does come back, stuff regrows. We can see how evolution is being kickstarted, if you like, by the chaos that we're creating. That's not to say we shouldn't stop creating the chaos, but we can see how nature recovers.
These are things that we can recognize and respond to; giving nature room to recover, rewilding projects, therefore I'm all in favor of [them]. We're not rewilding where we're trying to garden nature to get back to some sort of perfected past, a pristine system where we thought that everything was great — pre-industrial revolution or before Europeans arrived in North America or whatever it might be. But, we can give nature room to evolve and adapt and change. We can see that nature's doing that all the time, with or without climate change and with or without humans. Nature is constantly, if you like, remaking itself.
I'm not saying nature always comes back in ways that we approve of. Let's recognize the distinction between our sort of slightly romanticized idea of what nature should be and what nature actually is.
HO: You talk about rewilding and letting nature take its course, but how do humans fit in with this? Can we adapt our own perceptions of what nature is allowed and what's not?
FP: I think we can probably forget about what's allowed and what's not. Nature will do what it wants to do. We pride ourselves on our ability to garden nature in a way, or manage ecosystems. We're not really very good at it. Nature will very often take over and do what it wants to do.
Some of the world's biggest rewilding projects have gone quite badly wrong because we haven't quite thought it through. The one I'm thinking of really is the large project in the Netherlands where they're trying to sort of recreate ancient European ecosystems and they ended up with mass deaths of animals because their conception of the ecosystem didn't quite figure out. They then largely abandoned the project because they didn't like to see large numbers of animals dying.
A hardline rewilder would say let nature take its course. I see the case for that, and often I would support that, but we have our own sensibilities and our own concerns and we are living in a world where we are very much in charge of what's going on. So while I'm in favor of standing back and letting nature take its course, we have our own sensibilities, and it's not wrong for us to want to intervene sometimes.
HO: There's a chapter on human population and fertility rates, and how this is very much a climate change story as well. We're now seeing a lot of the rhetoric around this, and rights being stripped back and taken away. What's it like for you, having seen the changes from the UN International Conference on Population in Mexico in the 80s, to Cairo in the 90s to now?
FP: It's an extraordinary story. I've been working on these issues for 40 years now so I've seen a number of changes. Some of the changes I've seen are how technical fixes somehow became a reality when they seemed very distant a while ago.
But our perceptions change too on many things. We are, in many ways, more attuned to environmental issues now than we were 30 or 40 years ago. One of the big changes that I've seen is the notion of the population bomb, which for much of the 20th century was seen as the number one issue. People would say, "Well, there's no point in fixing the climate, there's no point in reducing our pollution because there are more and more people on the planet, and we're kind of doomed for that reason."
Well, it hasn't [happened]. When I went to my first international conference, which was the UN Population Conference in Mexico City in 1984, that was all the rage. They gave the UN Population prize to the mastermind of China's one child policy, which — in terms of human rights and what I would regard as acceptable human behavior — was dreadful. But such was the concern about population issues that they wanted to give a prize to the operator of that program.
A lot has changed. A feminist agenda, if I could put it that way, and I would say that approvingly, has taken over in reproductive politics. I saw it at a UN population conference in Cairo in 1994, 10 years after the Mexico event, that we need to assert reproductive rights. Many environmentalists said that's a cop out. It was all "it's feminist perspective, but it's dooming us."
Well, it didn't, because what we found was that by and large, women wanted to have smaller families because their children got to grow up. Medical improvements meant that you didn't have to have four or five children to secure the next generation. Two would usually do, sometimes you just wanted one. Women wanted to have lives outside the home. The population people seemed to be a bit surprised by that.
The environmental agenda was a very male-dominated one for a long time. So that came as a bit of a surprise, but the net result is that we've halved our fertility rates. They're more or less down to replacement levels [of reproduction] now globally.
I'm not just talking about Europe or North America. I'm talking about almost everywhere except Africa, and African levels have come down. Sometimes they're coming down to super low levels, so that people are now talking about not having enough babies and how we can encourage people to have babies. There are parts of the world where we're down to one child per woman and even a bit less.
My argument is that we need to carry on. Not take a sort of Elon Musk approach [or] send the women back to the home and [do] reproduction and that's what their job is. We need to complete the feminist revolution so that women have more rights, can make better choices, and indeed couples can make more and better choices about the family size that they want. We can arrange things so that it is possible to have children and a career, or make it easier to do that, and at that point probably reproduction levels will come back up.
What I'm really saying is that the agenda is now vastly different from what it was as recently as the 1980s and, and into the 1990s. The population bomb is being defused, to put it simply, there's a residual momentum effect which means that our numbers will carry on going up a bit. Sure, that creates strains on the planet, but we're not now talking about double the world population every 30 years, which is what was being talked about back in the mid 20th century. It's tailing off.
We now have, if you like, a consumption bomb more than a population bomb. The global issue is consumption in the rich world, and that's what's stressing the planet now — not too many babies in poor parts of the world.
It's important to level up, but also level down from the obscene riches that we see among a small number of individuals
HO: Inequality between the super rich and people in developing countries is becoming more and more stark. How do we bridge the gap to make sure there's a reasonable living standard for regular people without a huge cost to the environment?
FP: The truth is, and the numbers have been done by a number of different people, a reasonable standard of living for everybody on the planet is perfectly feasible without destroying the planet.
We need to do some things better, we need to have better technology, but for me, right up there with climate change is an issue of global inequality. When I was young, it was taken [that] inequalities were diminishing and it was taken almost as read that they would carry on diminishing, and a lot of aid policies were directed towards that. That's kind of disappeared since the sort of Reaganomics of the 1980s, all the changes in the finance system and perhaps the fall of the Berlin Wall, which meant that the sort of socialist or, or equality-based agendas collapsed politically.
We're now finding increased inequality, and that, it seems to me, is a threat to the lives of millions and billions of humans, but also to global stability and our ability perhaps to manage.
Serious global issues like climate change and many others are all undermined by the political stresses and economic stresses created by rising inequality. I see them going together.
It's also clear that it's important to level up, but also level down from the obscene riches that we see among a small number of individuals, who seem to be accumulating a greater share of the world's wealth, whether we're talking about dollars or natural resources.
HO: You have a whole chapter on renewables and how they're outpacing fossil fuels. They're the cheaper alternative. How do you see the political opposition to clean energy panning out over the next five to 10 years?
FP: It's fizzling out. It's a weird political backlash and yes, any big social trend or economic trend, they all have backlashes and it feels to me like this is it. What we see in the real world is that the U.S. — not just the U.S., but principally the U.S. — are in a state of near denial about climate and they're wanting to go back to fossil fuels.
In the rest of the world, if you look at it in terms of geopolitics of [the] U.S. versus China, then the U.S. is pushing this rather old agenda of fossil fuels, and China is absolutely going to reap the benefits in many, many ways in its drive towards renewables. China has been a really bad story in the past with its coal burning — and it's still building a few coal-fired power stations. But the really big story is how China has been principally responsible for bringing down the costs of renewable energy, particularly solar power.
You can now go to the most remote corners of rural Africa and you find people putting up their solar panels to recharge car batteries so that they can run their lights in the evening or whatever it is. And then you've got megacities operating using increasing amounts of solar power. India is getting on the bandwagon as well. It's got the fastest growing solar energy economy in the world.
In the real world, renewable [energy] is mostly cheaper than fossil fuels. It is also quicker to install, you don't have to build a huge power station, you can do it in bits and pieces, bolt bits on.
Yes, there are grid issues and they need to be addressed, and there are limits on operating. There are challenges, but renewables are just growing so fast, and it is growing so fast because it is so cheap.
And it's become so cheap, to put it very simply, because the Chinese 20 or 30 years ago decided this is what's going to happen. While everybody else was sort of talking about it and fussing about it and doing it in research labs, the Chinese kind of got to grips with it. I remember back in the 1990s talking about people who were going into China and coming back and telling me stories about how the Chinese are really serious about renewable energy. To be honest, I didn't quite believe them, but they were right, and 30 years on, the world is living with the benefits. That's true whether you're talking about Europe or rural Africa or big cities in Asia or wherever. It's coming.
There will be different solutions in different places and there are undoubtedly things that are harder to do than, you know, running our national grids on renewable energy, which is becoming really quite easy and something that everybody wants to do. The cement industries, fertilizers perhaps, some of these industries will take some more technical innovation. But it's happening, these are technical fixes that are working in the real world. Will we do it in time? Well, we're a bit late on the case, but we are on the case.
HO: We're now seeing a massive rise in AI data centers as well. Is this bad tech, shall we say?
FP: It's a serious issue. Partly because they're growing so fast — they can't just plug into the grid because the grid really can't deliver, so these companies are developing their own energy systems. Even in the U.S. they are very often renewable systems because they're cheaper. If you've got a data center out in Texas, then you're going to use wind power or solar power because it's cheaper and you're in control of it.
I suppose we reach a point where [we have to decide], do we want to reduce our use of energy or have almost as much energy as we want, but just green it and green it very fast. It is true that if all the renewable investment is going into electricity for data centers, that leaves less investment for other sectors of the economy, so I'm sure there are trade-offs, and I'm not saying that we should embrace data centers. But they can be a driving force for adoption of different forms of energy, renewable energy, and for perhaps changes in the grid systems as well.
I think we can have both. I think we need to have both because we're probably not going to stop the data engines, so we've got to find ways of greening them. There are issues and there are challenges ahead, and I don't want to diminish any of those, but you know, let's, let's be hopeful.
The title of the book uses the word hopeful rather than optimist because I don't want to sound Panglossian, but I do want to inject some hope.
HO: When you started writing the book, what did you hope people would take from it, and did that change after you'd finished?
FP: Well it kind of evolved. It began as an idea to sort of [be a] retrospective of my reporting, and then the publisher said, "Well, the story changes rather a lot along the way, so rather than just showcasing your reporting over 40 years, why don't you showcase the change, and be hopeful in the context of how things have changed over the last 40 years?"
That was [the] kind of starting point, and we sharpened up on it, as we went along it did become "Despite It All" and you know, the title is important, and not diminishing the "All." There's a lot of bad stuff out there, but despite it all we can have hope and we can find, develop and demand solutions.
HO: Did you find anything during the process of writing the book that surprised you?
FP: As I say, it started as a sort of retrospective project and going through it, [there were places I went years ago] and it did look bad, then I checked up on what had happened over the intervening years and suddenly things looked a lot better.
I went to Alaska and saw how the conflicts over managing caribou herds and the huge migrations that go on and it felt like that was doomed. I was talking to people who were hunting the animals and they were trying to protect them because they wanted to hunt them, therefore they wanted them still to be there, which is kind of counterintuitive for many environmentalists, but you know, they were the best defenders of the caribou because they ate them.
But it felt doomed, and yet 20 years later I checked out the numbers and the population of that herd has doubled and tripled. So stuff does happen and I suppose my surprise was how much good change I found when I looked into it further. Maybe that's me being better at looking for good news stories. I've written quite a lot of "bad news" books over the years and done a lot of "bad news" journalism over the years, so I certainly don't discount that. But if you step back and you think, well did good stuff happen? Well, yeah, sometimes it did.
The bison herds are coming back on the plains of parts of North America, if you go to Montana. The ranches are disappearing and big areas are being set aside for bison, and I've been seeing how farmland in parts of southern and eastern Europe has been abandoned over the years. It's not necessarily good news that we're abandoning farmland, but again, the way that nature comes back and woodlands are growing, there are more forests in Europe than there have been for probably centuries.
There's a lot of bad stuff to say. But it does seem to me that we have to not just cling onto, but embrace good stuff and try [to] take it forward.
Something I really hadn't thought about till I went back was what were the big issues in the 1980s, 1970s when I started out. Well, all our industrial rivers in Britain were filthy. Now our industrial rivers are relatively clean. It's our agricultural rivers that are filthy, so, I mean, there's been a big change there.
Nobody has to talk much about the ozone layer now. That was the number one issue in the mid 1980s, and the absolutely terrifying prospect if we hadn't fixed that. But it's been fixed.
We banned the chemicals that were doing it.
Remember acid rain, lead in petrol. They were hot topics, headline news, part of the rise of the environmental agenda in the 1980s — and they're the ones that we don't have to talk about anymore.
Now we're talking about climate change. I think there are other things coming up. I think the issue of nitrogen pollution is a fast growing one, and we need technical solutions to that.
The green revolution of crops, the high-yielding crops, which got us out of a cycle of ever worsening hunger and famines in the mid 20 century. That was a solution which created new problems. Those crops grew very well, but they required large amounts of inputs, including water, and water is now a growing issue — finding enough irrigation water, but also fertilizer and other agrichemicals. We're now reaping some of the bad effects of that, and we need to solve that. Scientists I know are working on, if you like, high-yielding crops that don't require so much fertilizer and don't require so much water.
It's doable because as I think I said at the start, we do a lot of things really very badly, but that does give us a lot of scope to do things a lot better, so let's get on with it.
This interview has been condensed and edited lightly for clarity.
In "Despite it All," Fred Pearce looks at the positive environmental changes that have taken place over the last four decades, from the defused population bomb to the unstoppable rise of renewables. While acknowledging there is still an enormous amount of work to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, Pearce shows there is hope for the future — HO
The Dink is now streaming on Apple TV, bringing pickleball rivalries, family tension and a star-filled ensemble to the platform in a new feature from Apple Original Films.
Jake Johnson leads the sports comedy as Dusty Boyd, a former tennis prodigy whose career has been reduced to coaching unruly children at the suburban country club operated by his father, Chuck, played by Ed Harris.
Dusty remains desperate to earn Chuck approval and supports his campaign against the pickleball players moving into the club. That loyalty becomes harder to maintain when an old injury prevents Dusty from continuing to play tennis and forces him to try the sport he has spent years dismissing.
Mary Steenburgen stars as Candace, the pickleball player who helps Dusty discover that the smaller court and plastic ball may offer more competition, community and personal meaning than he expected.
The official trailer previews the increasingly absurd conflict as Dusty moves from mocking pickleball to treating it with the same intensity that once defined his tennis ambitions.
The Dink uses the cultural rivalry between tennis and pickleball as the foundation for a familiar but effective underdog story.
Dusty has built his identity around a sport that no longer provides the future he imagined. Coaching children keeps him close to tennis, but it also becomes a daily reminder of the professional career that never reached its expected destination.
Chuck makes that disappointment more difficult to escape. He treats tennis as a tradition worthy of protection and pickleball as an invasion threatening the character of his club. Dusty supports that view partly because opposing the new sport offers another chance to remain aligned with his father.
The injury breaks that arrangement. Dusty can either accept that his competitive life has changed or continue defending a version of himself that no longer exists.
Pickleball gives the movie an accessible way to explore that conflict. The sport has grown rapidly across the United States, attracting recreational players, professional tournaments, celebrity investors and frequent arguments over shared tennis courts.
That expansion has created a real cultural divide. Longtime tennis players sometimes view pickleball as an easier imitation occupying spaces built for their sport. Pickleball players respond that its accessibility, social atmosphere and shorter learning curve are precisely why it has become so popular.
The movie exaggerates those attitudes without requiring viewers to understand tournament rules or follow professional pickleball. Dusty resistance is easy to recognize because the dispute is ultimately about status, pride and adapting when another generation changes the environment.
Johnson brings the frustrated comic rhythm that made his work in New Girl and Self Reliance distinctive. Dusty can recognize the ridiculousness surrounding him while remaining too emotionally invested to step away from it.
Ed Harris gives Chuck the kind of dramatic intensity that can make an argument about pickleball sound like a defense of national values.
The performance works because Harris does not need to treat the character as an obvious joke. Chuck absolute seriousness turns court access, club traditions and Dusty choices into matters of personal betrayal.
Steenburgen provides a warmer presence as Candace, whose interest in pickleball is connected to friendship and personal renewal rather than institutional rivalry. Her character gives Dusty an alternative to the approval he has spent years seeking from his father.
The supporting cast adds several different styles of comedy. Chloe Fineman appears as Marisa, while Patton Oswalt, Chris Parnell and Aaron Chen populate the club with characters capable of pushing the central rivalry into increasingly strange territory.
Ben Stiller appears in the movie while also serving as a producer through Red Hour Films. His involvement creates an immediate connection to the broad sports comedies of the 2000s, particularly stories in which an underestimated activity becomes an arena for oversized ambition.
Former tennis champion Andy Roddick also appears, bringing part of Dusty competitive past directly into the story. John McEnroe joins the collection of tennis personalities willing to participate in a movie built around the sport losing territory to pickleball.
The appearances allow The Dink to make fun of tennis culture without presenting it as an invented stereotype. The athletes understand the rivalry and can participate in the joke while giving the movie a recognizable connection to professional competition.
Josh Greenbaum directs from a screenplay by Sean Clements. Greenbaum previously directed Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar and the documentary Will & Harper, demonstrating an interest in unusual personalities whose comic journeys contain more sincerity than their premises initially suggest.
Clements brings experience from television comedy, including Workaholics, helping the film maintain an ensemble rhythm rather than depending entirely on pickleball references.
Apple acquired worldwide distribution rights to The Dink in August 2025, adding the project to a film catalog that moves between major dramas, action productions, documentaries and mainstream entertainment.
The movie offers a deliberately lighter summer release than many of the prestige projects associated with Apple Original Films. Its appeal depends on character chemistry, physical comedy and a sport already producing arguments in clubs and neighborhoods across the country.
That approach gives Apple TV a feature capable of reaching viewers who may not be looking for another complex series or franchise commitment. The story is contained, the conflict is immediately understandable and the cast combines familiar performers from several generations of comedy and drama.
The Dink also arrives as Apple TV continues developing a broader identity for its movie catalog. Award recognition remains part of the strategy, but accessible comedies can give subscribers a different reason to open the service on a weekend.
The film held its global premiere in Los Angeles on July 20, with Johnson, Harris, Steenburgen, Fineman, Aaron Chen, Greenbaum and Clements attending the event at Westfield Century City.
Johnson also serves as a producer alongside Stiller, John Lesher, Rob Paris and Mike Witherill. That position gives the lead actor a larger role in shaping a comedy built closely around his familiar ability to play disappointed men attempting improbable reinvention.
The timing could also help the film benefit from growing curiosity around pickleball. Viewers who already play will recognize the sport competitive personalities and social appeal, while skeptics may find Dusty hostility uncomfortably familiar.
The Dink runs for one hour and 42 minutes and carries a PG-13 rating for strong language and sexual material. It is available exclusively to Apple TV subscribers through the Apple TV app.
The post The Dink Premieres on Apple TV With Pickleball Chaos appeared first on AppleMagazine.
The Last Person on Earth will bring a different kind of dating experiment to Apple TV, pairing people who appear fundamentally incompatible before sending them to some of the world most romantic and isolated destinations.
Apple announced the eight-episode documentary series with Esther Perel, the bestselling author, psychotherapist and relationship expert known for examining desire, intimacy, infidelity and the tensions inside modern partnerships.
Perel will work with a team of matchmakers and therapists to create pairings that challenge the usual assumptions surrounding compatibility. Rather than finding contestants who share the same interests, routines and preferences, the series will deliberately bring together people who may initially see each other as the last person they would ever choose.
The central question is whether attraction can develop when familiar dating checklists are removed. Apple describes the series as an exploration of whether an unexpected partner can become the person someone ultimately cannot imagine living without.
No premiere date, contestant list or filming locations have been announced.
The Last Person on Earth enters a crowded dating television market with a premise that rejects one of the most common promises made by matchmaking services: that compatibility can be predicted through similarity.
Dating apps routinely organize potential relationships through age, location, interests, lifestyle preferences, political beliefs and other personal filters. The process can help users avoid obvious conflicts, but it can also create increasingly narrow definitions of who deserves consideration.
Perel has frequently argued that desire does not always emerge from familiarity. Attraction can depend on difference, curiosity and the discovery of qualities that were not included on a checklist.
The Apple TV series turns that idea into a structured experiment. Participants will meet someone who appears to contradict their expectations before traveling together to a remote setting where ordinary distractions and familiar support systems may be limited.
That environment creates immediate dramatic possibilities. A beautiful destination can make a first connection feel unusually intense, but isolation can also expose differences that would remain hidden during short dates in familiar surroundings.
The presence of therapists and matchmakers suggests that the series will examine those reactions rather than presenting every disagreement as entertainment. Perel can help participants distinguish between genuine incompatibility, defensive habits and discomfort created by encountering someone outside their usual pattern.
The experiment does not promise that every opposite pairing will succeed. Difference can produce curiosity, but it can also reveal conflicts involving values, communication, life goals or emotional availability.
The more revealing outcome may be whether participants leave with a broader understanding of attraction, even when the relationship itself does not continue.
Perel gives the series a more analytical foundation than the competition-driven structure used by many dating programs.
Her books Mating in Captivity and The State of Affairs examine the contradictions surrounding commitment, desire and personal freedom. She also hosts the podcasts Where Should We Begin? and How Work, presenting conversations that explore relationships without reducing complicated behavior to simple villains and heroes.
That background may help The Last Person on Earth avoid familiar reality television shortcuts. Dating shows often depend on rapid attraction, artificial scarcity and public rejection. Contestants compete for one person, choose partners through brief impressions or make long-term commitments before they have experienced ordinary life together.
The new series begins with a different source of tension. Participants are not being told that a seemingly perfect match has been selected. They are being asked to question why someone who appears wrong may deserve a closer look.
Perel describes the project as an invitation to move beyond what feels familiar or safe. Her involvement also raises expectations that the series will explore how participants construct their preferences.
A person may insist on dating only someone with a certain career, personality or social style without understanding where that requirement originated. Some preferences protect legitimate needs. Others may repeat an old relationship pattern or prevent vulnerability by eliminating anyone capable of creating uncertainty.
The matchmakers and therapists can examine those distinctions before, during and after the trip. Their role could become particularly valuable when participants confuse immediate comfort with long-term suitability or mistake tension for romantic chemistry.
Apple has not explained how long each pairing will remain together, whether several couples will appear in each episode or how the experiment will determine its final outcomes.
Sending couples to romantic and remote destinations adds more than scenery.
Modern dating frequently develops through phones, messaging, social media profiles and quick meetings fitted around work schedules. Participants may arrive with established habits for checking other options, retreating into digital distractions or ending contact before uncertainty has time to become meaningful.
A remote journey removes part of that structure. Two people must spend sustained time together, make decisions and respond to unfamiliar situations without immediately returning to separate routines.
Travel can accelerate intimacy because it creates shared memories and reveals behavior under pressure. Delays, unfamiliar environments, fatigue and practical disagreements may show more than a polished restaurant conversation.
The destinations may also create a misleading sense of closeness. A relationship formed in an exceptional setting still needs to survive ordinary responsibilities, geography, work and family expectations after the trip ends.
The documentary format gives Apple an opportunity to follow that transition rather than ending with a dramatic choice at the destination. Whether the series continues documenting the couples after they return home has not been disclosed.
The title adds another layer to the concept. The “last person” can mean the least expected match, but it also reflects the anxiety surrounding modern dating. A growing number of people describe exhaustion with apps, repeated disappointment and the feeling that suitable partners are disappearing.
Apple links the experiment to rising social isolation and polarization. People increasingly sort themselves into cultural, political and lifestyle groups, while digital systems learn to reinforce existing preferences.
A relationship series built around difference can test whether those divisions remain as rigid when two people encounter each other as individuals rather than profiles representing opposing categories.
The eight-episode order gives the production enough space to develop several pairings without extending the experiment indefinitely. Its success will depend on whether the participants receive room to behave naturally or are pushed toward the exaggerated conflict expected from conventional dating television.
Perel provides the series with a promising tension: lasting relationships require genuine compatibility, yet attraction can disappear when every element feels predictable. The challenge is not proving that opposites always belong together. It is discovering which differences create possibility and which ones should remain deal-breakers.
The post The Last Person on Earth Reinvents Dating Shows appeared first on AppleMagazine.
The Morning Show Season 5 will officially conclude one of the longest-running and most recognizable dramas on Apple TV when it premieres in 2027.
Apple confirmed that the fifth season will be the last, allowing Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon and the creative team to complete the stories of Alex Levy, Bradley Jackson and the troubled journalists surrounding their fictional television network.
Aniston and Witherspoon will return as stars and executive producers. Both indicated that the ending was planned while the season was being developed, giving the writers an opportunity to create a deliberate conclusion rather than leaving the characters suspended after an unexpected cancellation.
Apple has not announced a specific premiere date or episode schedule. The company has released first-look images featuring Aniston and Witherspoon together, confirming that production on the final chapter is moving forward for a 2027 arrival.
The Morning Show Season 5 was originally announced in September 2025, shortly before the fourth season premiered. At the time, Apple presented the renewal as another chapter for an established global hit without indicating that it would end the series.
The decision to identify it as the final season changes the expectations surrounding every storyline. Rather than creating another crisis that could lead into a sixth season, the writers can determine where the central characters belong after years of professional upheaval, corporate conflict and personal compromise.
Showrunner Charlotte Stoudt suggested that the final episodes will examine what the journalists ultimately choose for themselves. That direction fits a series in which success has rarely provided its characters with stability or satisfaction.
Alex and Bradley began the drama from sharply different positions. Alex was an established television personality attempting to protect her career during a public scandal, while Bradley entered the network as an unpredictable outsider. Their relationship developed through rivalry, loyalty, separation and repeated confrontations with the institutions employing them.
The final season can now treat those ambitions as completed journeys rather than temporary stages. Alex must decide what remains worth defending after years of negotiating with executives, billionaires and political interests. Bradley must determine whether pursuing the story at any personal cost remains sustainable.
Season four moved the drama into a media environment shaped by deepfakes, conspiracy theories, corporate influence and uncertainty over what audiences can trust. Its story continued examining how journalism operates when the network reporting the news is also affected by commercial priorities and internal power struggles.
Apple has not disclosed the central subject of Season 5. The first-look images concentrate on Aniston and Witherspoon, placing their complicated partnership back at the center after a fourth season that separated the characters through an international crisis.
The Morning Show debuted on November 1, 2019, the same day Apple launched its streaming service.
Its position in the original lineup made the series more than another drama acquisition. Apple needed recognizable performers and an ambitious production capable of signaling that the new platform intended to compete for major television audiences and awards.
Aniston and Witherspoon provided immediate visibility, while the newsroom setting allowed the series to respond to current debates involving workplace misconduct, corporate accountability, political polarization and the influence of television journalism.
The first season began after allegations against morning-show anchor Mitch Kessler, played by Steve Carell, forced the network to restructure its leading program. Alex attempted to retain control while Bradley was selected as an unconventional replacement capable of changing the tone of the broadcast.
Later seasons expanded far beyond the original scandal. The drama incorporated the COVID-19 pandemic, a technology billionaire attempting to acquire the network, the merger of UBA and NBN, artificial intelligence, misinformation and international political pressure.
The willingness to move quickly into recognizable real-world subjects became part of the identity of The Morning Show. Its fictional network frequently operated only a short distance from controversies affecting actual media companies, public figures and technology platforms.
The approach sometimes pushed the series toward heightened melodrama, but that excess also distinguished it from a conventional workplace production. Executive decisions, personal betrayals and breaking-news events could carry the intensity of a political thriller.
Billy Crudup became one of its most acclaimed performers as Cory Ellison, the charismatic executive whose enthusiasm for disruption regularly concealed more complicated motives. Crudup won two Emmy Awards for the role and will return for the final season.
Apple executives have described the production as a defining part of the streaming service. Ending it after five seasons closes a direct connection to the original Apple TV launch lineup while allowing the platform to preserve the series as a completed story.
The final season will bring back Aniston, Witherspoon, Crudup, Mark Duplass, Nicole Beharie, Nestor Carbonell, Karen Pittman and Jon Hamm.
Hamm joined the series as Paul Marks, a technology billionaire whose business ambitions and relationship with Alex reshaped the third season. His continued presence indicates that the consequences of his involvement with the network have not been fully resolved.
Several new performers will enter the drama for its last run. Apple has assembled additions including Jeff Daniels, Reneé Rapp, Jesse Williams, Sean Hayes and Lizzy Caplan, although complete character details remain limited.
Daniels brings a particularly appropriate history to the production after starring as news anchor Will McAvoy in The Newsroom. His presence creates an immediate association with another television drama concerned with journalism, newsroom ethics and the conflict between ratings and public responsibility.
Rapp returns to a major television role after building her music career and appearing in projects including The Sex Lives of College Girls and Mean Girls. Williams previously spent more than a decade on Grey’s Anatomy, while Hayes is best known for Will & Grace and has expanded into dramatic work.
Caplan has moved between comedy, drama and thrillers through projects including Masters of Sex, Fleishman Is in Trouble and Fatal Attraction. The scale of the additions suggests that the final season will introduce another major institutional or professional conflict rather than concentrating exclusively on farewell scenes.
Stoudt remains showrunner and executive producer. Mimi Leder continues as director and executive producer, while Media Res, Echo Films and Hello Sunshine remain behind the production.
Aniston described the opportunity to finish the story knowingly as a way to honor the characters with intention. Witherspoon emphasized that the series was never only about the personalities appearing on television, but also about the role of journalism and the people responsible for protecting the press.
That theme gives the final season a defined destination. The Morning Show began by asking whether a television institution could survive the misconduct it had protected. Its last episodes can decide whether the journalists inside that institution changed it, escaped it or became part of the machinery they once believed they could challenge.
The post The Morning Show Season 5 Will End the Apple TV Drama appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Nature Energy, Published online: 17 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41560-026-02092-9
The rapid growth of electric vehicles is creating a surge of end-of-life batteries. This Review evaluates current recycling methods, their suitability for emerging chemistries and the practical challenges for scaling a circular battery industry.Safari Notify Me gives Apple’s browser a useful new role in online shopping: watching a product page after the shopper has closed it. Instead of repeatedly returning to check whether an item is available or whether its price has changed, users can ask Safari to monitor the page and send an alert when the requested update appears.
The feature arrives as online shopping becomes increasingly fragmented. Prices can change several times during a promotion, popular items disappear within minutes and retailers often require shoppers to join separate mailing lists for availability alerts. Dedicated tracking apps can help, but each adds another account, extension or subscription.
Safari Notify Me places the monitoring tool inside the browser already being used to view the product. It is simple enough for occasional purchases while potentially useful for expensive electronics, limited releases, event registrations and products that move in and out of stock.
Safari Notify Me is designed to monitor changes on a specific webpage. The user identifies what should be watched, such as a lower price, a product returning to stock or registration becoming available. Safari then checks the page and sends a notification after detecting the relevant change.
Apple has presented price changes and product restocks as central examples, though the feature is not restricted to shopping. It may also help with reservations, ticket availability, enrollment openings or other pages where one detail changes over time.
For shopping, the advantage is immediate. A customer can leave the product page without relying on memory, leaving dozens of tabs open or refreshing the site throughout the day.
The browser becomes temporarily responsible for the follow-up.
This differs from a retailer’s own email alert. Store notifications usually depend on the business offering the feature, and they may focus only on inventory. Safari can monitor the page according to the user’s request, potentially covering price and availability without requiring another marketing subscription.
Online prices are rarely as stable as the label suggests. Retailers adjust discounts, respond to competitors, launch short promotions and change prices according to stock levels.
A shopper interested in a Mac accessory, appliance or expensive display may not want to purchase immediately at the listed price. Checking the page every day is inefficient, while joining a store mailing list can produce far more promotional email than useful information.
Safari price alerts create a quieter alternative. The user can identify the product and wait for the browser to report a meaningful change.
The feature does not replace price history. Safari may detect that the amount has dropped, but that does not necessarily prove the new price is the lowest offered during the year. Dedicated price-tracking services may still provide charts, comparisons and retailer-specific history.
Safari Notify Me is better understood as a page-change assistant. It tells the shopper that something requested has happened. The decision to purchase remains with the user.
Restock monitoring may become the feature’s strongest shopping use. Limited products can return without warning and sell out before a retailer’s email reaches every subscriber.
This often happens with game consoles, graphics hardware, collectibles, seasonal products, concert merchandise and popular configurations of newly released devices. Size and color variations can also return separately, making a general product alert less useful.
Safari restock alerts can focus on the page the user is already viewing. A notification provides a reason to return without requiring the tab to remain open.
The browser cannot reserve the item or guarantee that inventory will remain available. A notification may also arrive after other buyers have begun ordering. Safari removes the repeated checking, but it does not control the retailer’s inventory system.
That limitation is reasonable. Notify Me helps users notice the opportunity; it does not turn Safari into an automated purchasing bot.
The feature is intended to require little setup. Users begin on the relevant product or registration page and tell Safari which change they want it to watch.
Open the webpage in Safari > Select Notify Me > Describe the price, availability or page change to monitor > Allow Safari notifications when requested
The exact options shown may depend on the device, webpage and software version. Apple is introducing the feature with its new operating-system releases, and availability may vary by language or region.
A useful request should be specific. Asking Safari to report when the item returns to stock is more actionable than asking for any page change. For price monitoring, the user may request a reduction or watch for a particular target when the page supports enough information.
Once the alert is active, there is no need to keep the product page open. Safari sends a notification after detecting the requested update, allowing the user to return directly to the page.
Safari Notify Me is a practical example of Apple Intelligence operating as an assistant rather than a writing tool. It interprets what the user wants, watches for a future condition and reports back when that condition appears.
The feature does not need to generate a long answer or place a chatbot beside every shopping page. Its value comes from removing a repetitive task.
That restrained approach fits Safari. The browser already manages passwords, private browsing, tab organization, Reader and tracking protections. Monitoring a page extends that utility without turning Safari into a retailer or shopping marketplace.
It may also reduce the need for third-party extensions among casual users. Someone who occasionally watches one product does not necessarily need a dedicated deal platform with wish lists, affiliate links and account registration.
Specialized services will remain useful for serious bargain hunting. Safari covers the simpler request: tell me when this exact page changes in the way I care about.
Any feature built around alerts can become noisy when used too freely. Monitoring every product considered during casual browsing could fill Notification Center with price changes and restocks that no longer feel relevant.
Safari Notify Me works better when reserved for purchases with genuine intent. A few focused alerts are easier to understand and act upon than dozens of loosely defined page watches.
Users should also remove alerts after buying the item or losing interest. A notification for a product purchased weeks earlier adds clutter without saving time.
Safari notifications can be managed through the device’s normal notification settings. Disabling all Safari alerts may also silence other useful browser notifications, so reviewing individual watches inside Safari is preferable when available.
A lower price can encourage a quick purchase, but shoppers should still review the seller, return policy, warranty and delivery estimate. Notify Me reports a page change; it does not evaluate whether the store is reliable or whether the offer has hidden conditions.
A product may return through a third-party marketplace seller at a higher price. A discount may apply only after a membership, coupon or trade-in. Limited inventory can also create pressure to buy before reading the terms.
Safari’s privacy protections and fraud warnings remain relevant, but users should confirm that the page belongs to the intended retailer before entering payment information.
The alert is a starting signal, not an endorsement.
Browsers traditionally stop being helpful once users leave a page. Safari Notify Me changes that relationship by allowing selected pages to remain useful without remaining visible.
For shoppers, that means fewer repeated searches, fewer forgotten products and less dependence on promotional email. Price and restock alerts can operate quietly until there is a reason to return.
The feature will not replace advanced shopping trackers, and it cannot guarantee inventory. Its appeal is that most users do not need those larger systems for every purchase.
Sometimes the entire shopping problem is waiting for one price to fall or one button to change from unavailable to buy. Safari Notify Me allows the browser to handle that wait.
The post Safari Notify Me Makes Online Shopping Easier appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Sleep tracking on Apple Watch can make an invisible part of daily health easier to understand. Each morning, the watch may show sleep duration, stages, interruptions, overnight vitals and a score intended to summarize the night.
That information can be useful. It can also create a new habit of judging the entire day before getting out of bed.
One low score may make a person feel tired before noticing how they actually feel. A few minutes less deep sleep can become a source of concern. Going to bed can even start to feel like a test that must be passed rather than a normal biological process.
Apple Watch sleep data works better as a long-term observation tool than as a nightly verdict. The goal is not to collect perfect scores. It is to notice repeatable patterns and make small changes when those patterns match real-life problems.
Apple Watch estimates sleep using movement and signals collected while it is worn overnight. Depending on the model and available features, the Health and Sleep apps can show total sleep time, awake periods and estimates for core, deep and REM sleep.
The watch may also collect sleeping heart rate, respiratory rate, wrist temperature and other overnight metrics. The Vitals app compares several of these measurements with the user’s established typical range.
A sleep score compresses parts of the night into one number or category. Apple’s score considers factors including sleep duration, consistency and time spent awake. That makes it convenient, but convenience should not be confused with a complete medical interpretation.
The watch cannot know whether a stressful conversation kept someone awake, whether a child interrupted the night or whether the wearer woke feeling unexpectedly refreshed after fewer hours. It estimates physiological and behavioral signals. The person still supplies the context.
One night can be distorted by almost anything: travel, alcohol, illness, noise, a late meal, room temperature or a loose watch band. Even the position of the arm can affect sensor collection.
A weekly or monthly view is more useful because it reduces the influence of isolated nights. Patterns begin to emerge around bedtime consistency, total duration and changes in overnight vitals.
Health > Search > Sleep > select the weekly, monthly or six-month view
Look first at sleep duration and timing. These measurements are generally easier to interpret than small changes in individual sleep stages.
A person who repeatedly sleeps less on work nights may have a scheduling issue. Someone whose sleep becomes more fragmented after late caffeine may have found a useful connection. A consistently irregular bedtime may explain more than whether deep sleep moved by 12 minutes on Tuesday.
The data becomes valuable when it supports an observation that can lead to a realistic adjustment.
Core, deep and REM sleep are presented as distinct colored sections, which can make them appear more precise than they are. Apple Watch estimates these stages from signals available at the wrist. A clinical sleep study uses additional equipment and is designed for medical evaluation.
That does not make the stage information worthless. It means small nightly differences should not be overinterpreted.
A person does not need to increase deep sleep manually or achieve a perfect proportion of REM sleep. Sleep architecture changes naturally across age, stress levels, exercise, illness and different parts of the night.
Use stage data to notice substantial or persistent changes, not to compete with yesterday’s chart. Spending 15 minutes less in one estimated stage is not automatically a health problem.
Before opening the Sleep app, notice how the morning feels.
Was waking difficult? Is concentration normal? Is there unusual daytime sleepiness? Does the body feel recovered after exercise? Was the night interrupted for an obvious reason?
This brief self-check prevents the score from defining the experience. Someone may feel fine after a lower-rated night, while another person may feel exhausted despite receiving a favorable score.
The most useful interpretation combines both sources: subjective experience and device data. When they repeatedly agree, the pattern deserves attention. When they conflict for one night, there may be no reason to react.
The Vitals app can show whether overnight measurements such as heart rate, respiratory rate, wrist temperature and sleep duration fall within a typical range. It becomes more useful after the watch has collected enough nights to establish a personal baseline.
An outlier may reflect alcohol, medication, elevation, intense training or the beginning of an illness. It may also be an ordinary variation or imperfect reading.
Several unusual metrics appearing together may provide more context than one isolated number. Even then, Apple Watch data should not be used to diagnose a condition independently.
Persistent symptoms, breathing concerns, extreme daytime sleepiness or major changes in sleep should be discussed with a qualified healthcare professional. Bring the trend data if it helps describe what has been happening, but do not let the watch replace an evaluation.
The healthiest use of sleep tracking is to connect the data with actions a person can actually control.
A consistent bedtime may improve the pattern. Charging the watch before the evening makes tracking more reliable. Reducing late caffeine, adjusting the bedroom temperature or moving an intense workout earlier may also produce noticeable changes.
Health > Search > Sleep > Full Schedule & Options > Add Schedule
A schedule can provide Wind Down reminders and help keep bedtime more regular. It should remain a helpful structure rather than a rigid obligation. Life will occasionally interrupt it.
Choose one adjustment and observe it for a week or two. Changing five habits after one poor night makes it difficult to identify what helped.
Some people become preoccupied with improving sleep data, repeatedly checking results or worrying that a low score guarantees a bad day. The anxiety can itself make falling asleep more difficult.
That is a sign to reduce exposure to the numbers.
Sleep tracking can be turned off temporarily, or the data can be reviewed only once per week. Another option is to avoid checking the score in the morning and examine trends at a neutral time later.
Watch app on iPhone > My Watch > Sleep
A break does not erase the knowledge already gained. A person who has learned that regular timing and less late caffeine improve sleep may no longer need a daily chart to confirm it.
The device should support rest, not supervise it.
A practical morning review can remain simple. Check whether the watch recorded the full night. Notice total duration. Consider whether the bedtime was typical. Look for any major change in overnight vitals, then move on.
There is rarely a need to analyze every stage, compare several apps or search for explanations after one ordinary variation.
Sleep tracking on Apple Watch is most useful when it reveals something that was difficult to see without data: a repeated shortfall in duration, an inconsistent schedule or a pattern linked to habits and recovery.
The score can summarize one night, but it cannot grade the person who slept through it. A healthier measure is whether the information helps create calmer nights, better days and fewer reasons to think about the watch after waking.
The post Sleep Tracking on Apple Watch Without Chasing Scores appeared first on AppleMagazine.
The best digital planners for Mac and iPad are not necessarily the apps with the longest feature lists. A useful planner should help make the day easier to understand, keep commitments visible and reduce the number of places where tasks quietly disappear.
Mac and iPad also encourage two different planning styles. The Mac is better for typing, reviewing projects and arranging a full week across a larger screen. The iPad is more natural for handwritten notes, Apple Pencil planning and checking the day away from a desk. The strongest apps either work well across both devices or focus so successfully on one style that the compromise feels worthwhile.
Some people want a digital version of a paper agenda. Others want a visual timeline, a task manager, a calendar command center or a workspace that can hold an entire life. These are the strongest options for those different approaches.
Structured is the easiest recommendation for users who want to see the day as one continuous timeline. Tasks, appointments and focus sessions appear in chronological order, making it immediately obvious when the schedule is overloaded or when a free hour actually exists.
The app feels particularly natural on iPad because tasks can be moved and adjusted visually. Its Mac version provides more space for planning the full day while preserving the same clean layout. Structured also offers apps for iPhone and Apple Watch, which helps keep the plan accessible without repeatedly opening the Mac.
This is a strong choice for students, busy families and anyone who struggles with traditional task lists. A list says what needs to happen. Structured shows where each task can fit.
Its limitation is scale. It handles daily planning beautifully, but users managing large professional projects may need a separate project-management system. Structured is best when the priority is today rather than the entire company roadmap.
Goodnotes remains one of the best digital planners for iPad users who want the experience of paper without carrying notebooks. It supports Apple Pencil handwriting, PDF planner templates, typed text, images, links, stickers and searchable handwritten notes.
The experience depends heavily on the planner template selected. Users can choose daily, weekly, monthly, academic, financial or wellness layouts and import them as PDF files. Hyperlinked tabs can make a digital planner behave like a physical binder with instant navigation between months and sections.
The Mac app is useful for reviewing pages, typing longer notes and accessing the same documents at a desk. The iPad remains the better creation device because handwriting is the central appeal.
Goodnotes does not automatically manage time like a calendar-based app. Writing “meeting at 3 p.m.” on a page does not necessarily create a calendar alert. It is best for people who enjoy manually planning and reflecting rather than expecting the software to rearrange the day automatically.
Things 3 is a task manager rather than a traditional calendar, but its Today and Upcoming views make it an excellent personal planner. The interface is calm, fast and unusually disciplined. Tasks can be collected quickly, organized into projects and areas, then scheduled without turning the app into a complicated database.
The Mac version is especially good for weekly reviews and larger project organization. On iPad, Things feels lighter and more direct, with excellent keyboard support and touch controls. Cloud sync keeps tasks aligned across Apple devices.
Things is ideal for users who want to separate tasks from appointments. Calendar events can appear beside the daily list, but the app remains focused on actions rather than becoming a full calendar replacement.
The main drawback is collaboration. Things is designed primarily for personal planning, not shared team projects or household lists. It is also sold separately for Mac, iPad and iPhone rather than through one universal purchase.
Notion works for users who do not want to accept someone else’s idea of a planner. It can become a project tracker, editorial calendar, habit journal, reading list, weekly dashboard or all of those at once.
Templates make the starting process easier. A user can create daily pages connected to tasks, projects, goals and notes, then display the same information through calendar, table, board or timeline views. Notion Calendar adds a more conventional scheduling layer and works well on Mac.
The flexibility is both the attraction and the warning. Notion can become a beautifully organized personal operating system. It can also become a weekend-long design project that produces more templates than completed tasks.
The iPad app is useful for reviewing plans, adding notes and working with a keyboard. It is less satisfying for freehand Apple Pencil planning than Goodnotes. Notion is the better option for structured information, connected projects and users who enjoy building their own system.
Fantastical is the strongest choice for users whose day is governed by appointments, meetings and scheduled commitments. It combines calendars and tasks in polished day, week, month, quarter and year views across Mac and iPad.
Natural-language input makes adding events fast. Typing a phrase such as “Lunch with Alex Friday at noon” can create the event without opening several fields. Fantastical also supports multiple calendar services, time zones, reminders, meeting links and scheduling tools.
The Mac app is a strong command center for professional calendars. The iPad version offers enough space to examine the week without feeling compressed. Users can also connect Apple Reminders, Todoist or Google Tasks so scheduled work appears beside events.
Fantastical is less suited to reflective journaling or handwritten planning. Its premium subscription may also be excessive for someone who only needs a basic calendar. It earns its place when the calendar itself is the planner.
Sunsama approaches productivity as a daily planning ritual. Each morning, users review tasks, decide what belongs in the day and place that work onto the calendar through time blocking. At the end of the day, the app encourages a review rather than allowing unfinished tasks to become permanent background guilt.
It can collect work from services such as Notion, Trello, Asana and other professional tools, then combine those tasks with calendar events. This makes it useful for people whose work is scattered across several platforms.
Sunsama is more guided than most planners. That structure can help users stop planning an impossible day. The Mac experience is the main attraction, while the iPad app keeps the plan available away from the desk.
The subscription is relatively expensive, and the deliberate workflow may feel slow to users who only want a simple task list. Sunsama suits professionals who want planning to become a daily boundary around work rather than another place to collect everything.
The right planner depends on how the user naturally thinks.
Structured works best for seeing the day visually. Goodnotes is the closest replacement for a paper agenda. Things 3 provides the cleanest personal task system. Notion offers the most freedom. Fantastical serves users who live through their calendars. Sunsama brings the most deliberate approach to professional time blocking.
Using several planners at once usually defeats the purpose. A better strategy is choosing one primary system and allowing other apps to support it. Someone might use Fantastical for appointments and Things for tasks, or Goodnotes for weekly reflection while Structured runs the actual day.
The best digital planners do not create motivation by themselves. They create a reliable place to decide what deserves time. On Mac, that place can become a detailed planning desk. On iPad, it can feel closer to a notebook held in the hand. The right app should make those two experiences feel connected rather than duplicated.
The post Best Digital Planners for Mac and iPad 2026 appeared first on AppleMagazine.
Login
