Latest news with #BrianXChen
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Is AI going to be the future of web browsing?
By Brian X Chen When was the last time you thought about your web browser? If you don't remember, no one will blame you. Web browsers have remained fundamentally unchanged for decades: You open an app, such as Chrome, Safari or Firefox, and type a website into the address bar, and off you go. A web browser is important because so much of what we do on computers takes place inside one. But things are perhaps about to change a bit, as a new kind of browser is appearing on the horizon. The ones powered by generative artificial intelligence or GenAI, the tech driving popular chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini. Dia from New York-based startup the Browser Company illuminates how a web browser can do much more than load websites -- in seconds, Dia can provide a written recap of a 20-minute video without you having to watch its entirety. While scanning a breaking news article, the browser generates a list of other relevant articles for a deeper understanding. Like other web browsers, Dia is an app you open to load webpages. What's unique is the way the browser seamlessly integrates an AI chatbot to help - without leaving the webpage. Hitting a shortcut (command+E) in Dia opens a small window that runs parallel to the webpage. Here, you can type questions related to the content you are reading or the video you are watching, and a chatbot will respond. In contrast, chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude require opening a separate tab or app and pasting in content for the chatbot to evaluate and answer questions. This week, Perplexity, a startup that makes a search engine, announced an AI web browser called Comet, and some news outlets reported that OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, also plans to release a browser this year. OpenAI declined to comment. Tech behemoths like Google and Apple have added lightweight AI features into their existing browsers, Chrome and Safari, including tools for proofreading text and summarising articles. The Browser Company said it had teamed up with multiple companies to use their AI models for Dia. Basically, the user doesn't need to know or think about which chatbot to use. That, in a way, makes generative AI more accessible to the mainstream. The privacy question Privacy experts have long warned not to share any sensitive information, like a document containing trade secrets, with an AI chatbot since a rogue element could gain access to the data. When browsing something you wouldn't want others to know about, like a health condition, it's better to refrain from using the AI. This exchange - potentially giving up some privacy to get help from AI - may be the new social contract going forward. Will you pay for it? Dia is free, but AI models have generally been very expensive for companies to operate. Consumers who rely on Dia's AI browser will eventually have to pay, say its makers. The browser will remain free for those who use the AI tool only a few times a week. So whether an AI browser will be your next web browser will depend largely on how much you want to use, and pay, for these services. So far, only 3% of those who use AI every day are paid users, according to a survey by Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm.
Observer
18-04-2025
- Observer
Cheaper iPhones and pixels are here. They are pretty good
Brian X Chen With all the talk about tariffs driving up costs, the word 'cheaper' should bring comfort to just about anyone. That's why I'm delighted to share that the cheaper smartphone from Google has arrived, a few months after Apple released a somewhat cheaper entry-level iPhone — and that both products are very good. Google this week released the Pixel 9a, the $500 sibling of its $800 flagship smartphone, the Pixel 9. It competes directly with the $600 iPhone 16e released in February, the cheaper version of Apple's $800 iPhone 16. Both of the new phones have the staples that people care most about — great cameras, nice screens, zippy speeds, modern software and long battery life. To cut costs, they omit some fancier extras, like advanced camera features. Is it a wise idea to save some bucks, or better to spend more on the fancier phones? To find out, I strapped on a fanny pack and carried all four phones with me for the last week to run tests. The upshot: As is often the case, you get what you pay for. The $800 phones are slightly better in terms of features and performance than the cheaper versions and the $600 iPhone is faster and has a better camera than the $500 Pixel. But more important, the cheaper Pixel and iPhone were nearly indistinguishable from their $800 counterparts in several of my tests. In some cases, like battery life, the cheaper phones were even better. Here's what to know. The cheaper iPhone and Pixel look nearly identical to their more expensive siblings. Here's a rundown of how they compare: — The screens on the phones are the same size. — Both cheaper phones lack some camera features found on the more expensive versions. The Pixel 9a's camera sensor is smaller than the Pixel 9's, meaning it will capture less detail and light. — Both less expensive phones are slightly less powerful than their nicer counterparts. — The iPhone 16e lacks the iPhone 16's MagSafe feature, which uses a magnet to attach accessories such as power chargers and wallets to the back of the phone. The phone can still be charged wirelessly, however, using a slower charging standard called Qi. — Both phones can take advantage of artificial intelligence. The iPhone 16e can use Apple Intelligence to summarise text, generate images and remove photo bombers from pictures. Battery Long battery life is high on the priority list for people buying a new phone and the cheaper Pixel 9a and iPhone 16e are the clear winners here. They have larger batteries partly because they have more space for them, since the phones lack some features found in their more-expensive counterparts. The iPhone 16e and Pixel 9a lasted about a day and a half with general use, including web browsing, photo shooting and video playing, before their batteries were depleted. The iPhone 16 and Pixel 9 both lasted about a day. Camera Tests The downsides of buying cheaper phones were most pronounced in their cameras. I took my corgi, Max, to a park to take photos of him in various lighting conditions, including bright daylight, in the shade and in partly shaded areas. In general, photos taken with both the Pixel 9a and Pixel 9 looked consistently clear, with accurate colours. When I tested the iPhone 16e and iPhone 16 cameras, they excelled in all these tests and the results were nearly indistinguishable. Both iPhones outperformed the Pixel phones in shooting videos. Videos recorded of Max strolling through the park were clearer and smoother on the iPhones; the Pixel phone's videos looked choppier. So the main downside of the cheaper iPhone camera is simply what it can't do. Because the iPhone 16e lacks a second lens, I wasn't able to take an ultrawide shot of Max running in a field of grass. Speed The more expensive phones slightly outperformed the cheaper phones in terms of speed. According to the speed-testing app Geekbench, the Pixel 9a is about 4 per cent slower than the Pixel 9 and the iPhone 16e is 3 per cent slower than the iPhone 16. In real-world use of the phones, most people probably won't notice a difference. When I put the phones side by side and launched different apps and games, their performance felt about the same to me. What this means for you If you care mostly about having a smartphone with long battery life and a good camera, you'd be happy with either the iPhone 16e or Pixel 9a. But if you care a lot about any of the premium features missing from the cheaper phones, such as taking more detailed, better-looking photos or using Apple's MagSafe to charge your iPhone, then spending more is still a fine idea. — The New York Times The writer is the lead consumer technology writer for The New York Times
