Snapseed sprouts its first new growth in years, as major update blooms
Megan Ellis / Android Authority
TL;DR Google has rolled out a big update to the Snapseed app for iPhone and iPad.
The update refreshes the look and adds a new 'Faves' tab.
It appears there are no plans to update the Android version.
You may remember Snapseed, the photo editing app Google acquired back in 2012. It's been a while since Snapseed received a big update, but it looks like one just rolled out. The catch is that the update is only available for the iPhone and iPad.
Spotted by 9to5Google, the Snapseed app for iPhone and iPad has received a refresh and a few other changes. Version 3.0 not only introduces a simplified version of the app's icon, but also revamps the UI so photos you've edited appear in a grid. You'll also find a circular floating action button (FAB) near the bottom of the screen that will allow you to start editing.
Old
New
Additionally, Google has moved around the tabs and added a new option. The 'Looks' tab is still located on the bottom left, but 'Tools' has moved from the center spot over to the right. Meanwhile, the 'Export' tab has moved to the top right corner, with a new 'Faves' tab taking its old spot in the bottom bar. This new Faves tab lets you save tools for quick access.
The last time Snapseed received a big update like this was back in 2021, when dark mode was added for iOS. If you're wondering if the Android version will get the same treatment, don't get your hopes up. In a statement to The Verge, a Google spokesperson said that the company doesn't 'have anything to share yet.'
Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at
Email our staff at news@androidauthority.com . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Bitcoin Battle: Saylor's Dream Meets Chanos' Reality
Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of MicroStrategy Inc., speaks during the Bitcoin ... More 2025 conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, on Thursday, May 29, 2025. The event will examine Bitcoin's evolving global impact, with speakers from education, policy, finance, and technology. Photographer: Ronda Churchill/Bloomberg It's rare to see two titans of finance openly clashing on Bloomberg. On one side, you have Jim Chanos, the short-selling legend who made his name exposing Enron, now calling a multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin strategy 'financial gibberish.' On the other, Michael Saylor, the billionaire evangelist who transformed MicroStrategy into a leveraged crypto play, fired back that Chanos 'just doesn't get it' and is ignoring a model that has 'generated $8.4 billion in shareholder value.' This dispute isn't just a squabble; it's a philosophical showdown. At its core, the debate focuses on a fundamental question in modern investing: is Saylor's company a revolutionary tool for wealth creation, or is it just a glorified Bitcoin tracker that trades at an unjustifiable premium? When a legendary short seller calls your model absurd, and you counter by claiming billions in value creation, Wall Street takes notice. And so should we. Beneath the headlines lies a deeper question: what should we value, and how should we determine that? The name Jim Chanos evokes shivers in boardrooms. Best known for shorting Enron before its collapse, Chanos has built his reputation sniffing out companies with weak fundamentals and flashy facades. To him, valuation matters. Cash flows matter. Reality matters. On the opposite end of the spectrum stands Michael Saylor, the philosophical bull turned Bitcoin maximalist. Once the CEO of a quiet business intelligence firm, Saylor transformed MicroStrategy with a bold financial experiment: raise debt and equity, buy Bitcoin, repeat. While Chanos sees a threat, Saylor envisions a future secured by digital scarcity and conviction. It's not just a disagreement over numbers. It's a clash of belief systems: value versus vision, discipline versus disruption, and fundamentals versus faith. The stakes aren't just about one stock; they're about which worldview wins the next decade. DELIVERING ALPHA — Pictured: Jim Chanos, Founder and Managing Partner, Kynikos Associates, during ... More the Best Ideas panel at the 6th annual CNBC Institutional Investor Delivering Alpha Conference on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at the Pierre Hotel in New York — (Photo by: Heidi Gutman/CNBC/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images) When you set aside the brand and discussions about legacy software, Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, no longer operates as a tech company. It's a leveraged Bitcoin holding vehicle with a public ticker. The playbook is simple, bold, and controversial: issue equity or preferred shares, use the proceeds to buy Bitcoin, then do it all over again. Rinse, repeat, and continue the cycle. This model has transformed Saylor's firm into a robust corporate Bitcoin ETF. But unlike a regulated ETF, Strategy isn't passive. It's actively engineering upside using capital markets. To Saylor, this technique is an innovation. He calls it 'financial engineering for the digital age,' a form of monetary arbitrage. Borrow at 10%, bet on Bitcoin appreciating at 50%+, and shareholders pocket the difference. Critics like Jim Chanos call it something else: dangerous leverage masked as genius. They argue that the company is no longer generating value through operations or fundamentals but through financial alchemy based entirely on Bitcoin's price rising forever. However, others are copying Saylor's blueprint. Trump Media, other crypto-adjacent SPACs, and a crop of speculative small caps are now mimicking this model of equity offerings, hype, and digital assets as collateral. The question is no longer what Strategy does. It's how long the market will reward it for doing it. Never one to hold back, Jim Chanos views Strategy's valuation as detached from reality. At the heart of his critique is what he calls a 'yawning disconnect' between the company's share price and its actual Bitcoin holdings. Chanos argues that Strategy's current trading at approximately 1.8 times its net asset value (NAV), essentially its Bitcoin per-share value, is irrational. 'That's like buying Bitcoin with an 80% premium slapped on,' he told Bloomberg. To illustrate, Chanos offers a memorable analogy: 'It's like saying my house that rose in value from $450,000 to $500,000 last year is not worth $500,000. It's worth $1.5 million because it is worth $500,000 plus a 20 multiple on the $50,000 increase. Of course, that's absurd.' He argues that little more than hype and financial sleight of hand sustain this premium. Chanos disclosed that he shorted Strategy when the NAV premium was between 2.2 and 2.3 times, expecting it to compress back toward 1x. His position reflects more than just a tactical trade; it's a philosophical objection to what he sees as a marketing-driven vehicle masquerading as a technology company. 'This is not a tech business,' Chanos says. 'It's a tracker fund with leverage and a bullhorn.' He believes that the sole significant innovation in this situation is the branding, and he is confident that the market will eventually recognize it. From my seat after three decades of analyzing markets, bubbles, and breakups, I can say this: both Jim Chanos and Michael Saylor are right, but they're having two different conversations. Saylor has built a model that's undeniably worked as long as Bitcoin keeps climbing. He's turned capital markets into a Bitcoin-buying engine, leveraged the spread between the cost of debt and BTC appreciation, and framed that delta as value creation. That playbook has printed shareholder gains. There's no disagreement at that point. But Chanos isn't debating Bitcoin. He is questioning the valuation multiple, and he is correct in doing so. Strategy trades at a ~1.8x premium to its net Bitcoin holdings. Strip away the narrative, and you're paying $1.80 for every $1.00 of crypto exposure. Would you do that for gold? Would you choose to invest in Tesla stock, which has a substantial cash reserve? This conversation isn't a debate about crypto conviction; it's about valuation discipline. As investors, our job is to ask not what the company owns, but how the market is pricing it. Markets misprice dreams all the time. The challenge is knowing when the dream is priced in and when it's overbought. Saylor may be running the most successful macro trade of the decade. But Chanos reminds us: even the best trades can lose their edge when priced like religion, not risk. This saga is not just a dispute between two titans of finance, but it also serves as a lesson in understanding market perception. Don't confuse performance with fundamentals. MicroStrategy isn't a tech innovator anymore; it's a Bitcoin carry trade dressed in corporate clothing. Investors must ask: are you buying a business or renting exposure to an asset? 'Story stocks' often thrive on blurred lines between narrative and numbers. That's where risk hides. Financial engineering, despite its power, has both positive and negative effects. When done with precision, it unlocks value. When misunderstood, it magnifies volatility and obscures true worth. Know what you own. Respect the difference between price action and pricing power. Above all, avoid mistaking a trade for a strategy. This feud between Chanos and Saylor is more than a personality clash on Bitcoin, it's a mirror held up to modern markets. Fundamentally, it compels us to consider a more profound inquiry: what should we incentivize? Should we reward profits or performance? Should we prioritize substance over spectacle? When does bold strategy become reckless leverage? And when does skepticism blind us to financial innovation? Chanos sees a tracker fund in a tuxedo dressed up, overvalued, and divorced from fundamentals. Saylor sees the future of corporate finance leveraging cheap capital to capture asymmetric upside. The market, for now, seems to be siding with the tuxedo, favoring Saylor's bold Bitcoin vision over Chanos' valuation discipline. However, seasoned investors are aware that markets often make subtle changes before making significant ones. Whether it's Saylor's leveraged bet on Bitcoin or Chanos' warning about unsustainable premiums, the real risk lies in the assumptions we fail to question. Pay attention not just to the noise but to what's quietly being priced in.
CNBC
19 minutes ago
- CNBC
Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal, sources say
Alphabet's Google, the largest customer of Scale AI, plans to cut ties with Scale after news broke that rival Meta is taking a 49% stake in the AI data-labeling startup, five sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Google had planned to pay Scale AI about $200 million this year for the human-labeled training data that is crucial for developing technology, including the sophisticated AI models that power Gemini, its ChatGPT competitor, one of the sources said. The search giant already held conversations with several of Scale AI's rivals this week as it seeks to shift away much of that workload, sources added. Scale's loss of significant business comes as Meta takes a big stake in the company, valuing it at $29 billion. Scale was worth $14 billion before the deal. Scale AI intends to keep its business running while its CEO, Alexandr Wang, along with a few employees, move over to Meta. Since its core business is concentrated around a few customers, it could suffer greatly if it loses key customers like Google. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Scale AI raked in $870 million in revenue in 2024, and Google spent some $150 million on Scale AI's services last year, sources said. Other major tech companies that are customers of Scale's, including Microsoft, are backing away as well. Elon Musk's xAI is also looking to exit, one of the sources said. OpenAI decided to pull back from Scale several months ago, according to sources familiar with the matter, though it spends far less money than Google. OpenAI's CFO said on Friday that the company will continue to work with Scale AI, as one of its many data vendors. Companies that compete with Meta in developing cutting-edge AI models are concerned that doing business with Scale could expose their research priorities and road map to a rival, five sources said. By contracting with Scale AI, customers often share proprietary data as well as prototype products for which Scale's workers are providing data-labeling services. With Meta now taking a 49% stake, AI companies are concerned that one of their chief rivals could gain knowledge about their business strategy and technical blueprints. Google, Microsoft and OpenAI declined to comment. xAI did not respond to a request for comment. The bulk of Scale AI's revenue comes from charging generative AI model makers for providing access to a network of human trainers with specialized knowledge — from historians to scientists, some with doctorate degrees. The humans annotate complex datasets that are used to "post-train" AI models, and as AI models have become smarter, the demand for the sophisticated human-provided examples has surged, and one annotation could cost as much as $100. Scale also does data-labeling for enterprises like self-driving car companies and the U.S. government, which are likely to stay, according to the sources. But its biggest money-maker is in partnering with generative AI model makers, the sources said. Google had already sought to diversify its data service providers for more than a year, three of the sources said. But Meta's moves this week have led Google to seek to move off Scale AI on all its key contracts, the sources added. Because of the way data-labeling contracts are structured, that process could happen quickly, two sources said. This will provide an opening for Scale AI's rivals to jump in. "The Meta-Scale deal marks a turning point," said Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a Scale AI competitor. "Leading AI labs are realizing neutrality is no longer optional, it's essential." Labelbox, another competitor, will "probably generate hundreds of millions of new revenue" by the end of the year from customers fleeing Scale, its CEO, Manu Sharma, told Reuters. Handshake, a competitor focusing on building a network of PhDs and experts, saw a surge of workload from top AI labs that compete with Meta. "Our demand has tripled overnight after the news," said Garrett Lord, CEO at Handshake. Many AI labs now want to hire in-house data-labelers, which allows their data to remain secure, said Brendan Foody, CEO of Mercor, a startup that in addition to competing directly with Scale AI also builds technology around being able to recruit and vet candidates in an automated way, enabling AI labs to scale up their data labeling operations quickly. Founded in 2016, Scale AI provides vast amounts of labeled data or curated training data, which is crucial for developing sophisticated tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. The Meta deal will be a boon for Scale AI's investors including Accel and Index Ventures, as well as its current and former employees. As part of the deal, Scale AI's CEO, Wang, will take a top position leading Meta's AI efforts. Meta is fighting the perception that it may have fallen behind in the AI race after its initial set of Llama 4 large language models released in April fell short of performance expectations.
Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Meta invests $14.3B in AI firm Scale and recruits its CEO for ‘superintelligence' team
Meta is making a $14.3 billion investment in artificial intelligence company Scale and recruiting its CEO Alexandr Wang to join a team developing 'superintelligence' at the tech giant. The deal announced Thursday reflects a push by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to revive AI efforts at the parent company of Facebook and Instagram as it faces tough competition from rivals such as Google and OpenAI. Meta announced what it called a 'strategic partnership and investment' with Scale late Thursday. Scale said the $14.3 billion investment puts its market value at over $29 billion. Scale said it will remain an independent company but the agreement will 'substantially expand Scale and Meta's commercial relationship.' Meta will hold a 49% stake in the startup. Wang, though leaving for Meta with a small group of other Scale employees, will remain on Scale's board of directors. Replacing him is a new interim Scale CEO Jason Droege, who was previously the company's chief strategy officer and had past executive roles at Uber Eats and Axon. Zuckerberg's increasing focus on the abstract idea of 'superintelligence' — which rival companies call artificial general intelligence, or AGI — is the latest pivot for a tech leader who in 2021 went all-in on the idea of the metaverse, changing the company's name and investing billions into advancing virtual reality and related technology. It won't be the first time since ChatGPT's 2022 debut sparked an AI arms race that a big tech company has gobbled up talent and products at innovative AI startups without formally acquiring them. Microsoft hired key staff from startup Inflection AI, including co-founder and CEO Mustafa Suleyman, who now runs Microsoft's AI division. Google pulled in the leaders of AI chatbot company while Amazon made a deal with San Francisco-based Adept that sent its CEO and key employees to the e-commerce giant. Amazon also got a license to Adept's AI systems and datasets. Wang was a 19-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when he and co-founder Lucy Guo started Scale in 2016. They won influential backing that summer from the startup incubator Y Combinator, which was led at the time by Sam Altman, now the CEO of OpenAI. Wang dropped out of MIT, following a trajectory similar to that of Zuckerberg, who quit Harvard University to start Facebook more than a decade earlier. Scale's pitch was to supply the human labor needed to improve AI systems, hiring workers to draw boxes around a pedestrian or a dog in a street photo so that self-driving cars could better predict what's in front of them. General Motors and Toyota have been among Scale's customers. What Scale offered to AI developers was a more tailored version of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, which had long been a go-to service for matching freelance workers with temporary online jobs. More recently, the growing commercialization of AI large language models — the technology behind OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Meta's Llama — brought a new market for Scale's annotation teams. The company claims to service 'every leading large language model,' including from Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta and Microsoft, by helping to fine tune their training data and test their performance. It's not clear what the Meta deal will mean for Scale's other customers. Wang has also sought to build close relationships with the U.S. government, winning military contracts to supply AI tools to the Pentagon and attending President Donald Trump's inauguration. The head of Trump's science and technology office, Michael Kratsios, was an executive at Scale for the four years between Trump's first and second terms. Meta has also begun providing AI services to the federal government. Meta has taken a different approach to AI than many of its rivals, releasing its flagship Llama system for free as an open-source product that enables people to use and modify some of its key components. Meta says more than a billion people use its AI products each month, but it's also widely seen as lagging behind competitors such as OpenAI and Google in encouraging consumer use of large language models, also known as LLMs. It hasn't yet released its purportedly most advanced model, Llama 4 Behemoth, despite previewing it in April as 'one of the smartest LLMs in the world and our most powerful yet.' Meta's chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, who in 2019 was a winner of computer science's top prize for his pioneering AI work, has expressed skepticism about the tech industry's current focus on large language models. 'How do we build AI systems that understand the physical world, that have persistent memory, that can reason and can plan?' LeCun asked at a French tech conference last year. These are all characteristics of intelligent behavior that large language models 'basically cannot do, or they can only do them in a very superficial, approximate way,' LeCun said. Instead, he emphasized Meta's interest in 'tracing a path towards human-level AI systems, or perhaps even superhuman.' When he returned to France's annual VivaTech conference again on Wednesday, LeCun dodged a question about the pending Scale deal but said his AI research team's plan has 'always been to reach human intelligence and go beyond it.' 'It's just that now we have a clearer vision for how to accomplish this,' he said. LeCun co-founded Meta's AI research division more than a decade ago with Rob Fergus, a fellow professor at New York University. Fergus later left for Google but returned to Meta last month after a 5-year absence to run the research lab, replacing longtime director Joelle Pineau.
