Techin' Geek

In 2025, Americans fell victim to social media scams, losing $2.1 billion, as reported by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The agency indicates that losses due to social media scams have surged eight times and that these scams caused greater financial damage than any other means utilized by scammers to reach consumers.

Almost 30% of individuals who reported financial losses attributed them to scams that started on social media. More victims lost money from scams originating on Facebook than any other platform, with WhatsApp and Instagram following as distant second and third. Furthermore, the amount lost to scams on Facebook alone was significantly higher than that lost to text or email scams.

Data from the FTC reveals that social media scams come in various forms, with shopping scams being the most frequently reported type last year. Over 40% of those who lost money due to social media scams claimed they purchased an item they observed in an advertisement, with items ranging from apparel and cosmetics to car parts and even puppies. Many of these advertisements led consumers to unknown websites, while others directed them to counterfeit sites for well-known brands promising substantial discounts.

Another prevalent category of social media scams involves investment schemes that commence with advertisements or posts offering guidance on how to invest. Some scammers impersonate friendly advisors or create WhatsApp groups filled with fabricated testimonials. These investment frauds accounted for $1.1 billion in losses.

Moreover, nearly 60% of individuals who reported losing money in a romance scam in 2025 stated it began on a social media platform. Scammers often customize their pitches to align with an individual’s profile and later fabricate a crisis necessitating financial assistance. Alternatively, they may casually provide investment advice to draw victims onto a false investment platform.

The FTC recommends that users safeguard themselves against social media scams by restricting the audience for their posts and contacts, refraining from letting individuals they met online guide their investment choices, and thoroughly examining products before purchase by investigating the company and searching the name alongside the terms “scam” or “complaint.”

On Monday, Microsoft and OpenAI revealed that they have, once more, revised the agreement connecting the two firms. While some comments on X portray it as a triumph for the ChatGPT creator over the Windows powerhouse, both parties are leaving as beneficiaries.

Crucially, the new agreement addresses a concern that had been looming over OpenAI since it established its up-to-$50-billion contract with Amazon.

Under this fresh agreement, rather than Microsoft having sole access to all of OpenAI’s products and intellectual property until the fateful day when OpenAI achieves AGI, the collaboration now includes a clear timeline. This contract grants Microsoft a nonexclusive license to OpenAI’s IP for models and products until 2032.

The two firms continue to refer to Microsoft as OpenAI’s “primary cloud partner,” signifying that the majority of OpenAI’s cloud services will likely be provided by Azure for the next six years, even as OpenAI works swiftly to establish its own data centers with different collaborators. In October, OpenAI agreed to procure an additional $250 billion worth of Microsoft’s cloud services. This message serves to inform Microsoft shareholders that OpenAI will remain a significant customer of Azure.

OpenAI products will launch “first on Azure, unless Microsoft cannot and opts not to facilitate the required capabilities,” according to the companies. However, importantly, “OpenAI can now offer all its products to clientele across any cloud provider.”

Again, the term “first” is not explicitly defined in this announcement, whether it indicates exclusivity on Azure only for a limited period or if Microsoft will simply be one of the vendors providing OpenAI’s latest products.

Yet the most critical aspect of this term: It mitigates the risk that Microsoft could pursue legal action against OpenAI concerning the AI lab’s agreement with Amazon.

To summarize that complexity: In February, OpenAI announced that Amazon was investing up to $50 billion in the model creator, composed of a $15 billion initial investment and an additional $35 billion “in the coming months when certain conditions are fulfilled,” the companies mentioned, without detailing what those conditions entailed.

In return, OpenAI committed to co-develop a “stateful runtime technology” on AWS Bedrock (the AWS service that offers various AI models and services). Stateful runtime is the technology that enables AI agents to retain tasks and contexts over extended periods.

OpenAI also guaranteed that AWS would hold exclusive rights to present OpenAI’s new agent-creation tool, Frontier. And therein lies the issue.

OpenAI’s initial deal with Microsoft barred OpenAI from exclusively selling Frontier on AWS, and likely hindered AWS from offering it at all.

Although Microsoft had previously consented to allow OpenAI to operate certain select products, like the consumer ChatGPT, on alternative cloud providers, it kept exclusive rights to any OpenAI product accessed via an API, such as Frontier.

Indeed, on the exact day that OpenAI revealed its AWS agreement, Microsoft publicly denied the AWS-exclusive stipulations, stating (emphasis Microsoft’s):

Microsoft upholds its exclusive license and access to intellectual property across OpenAI models and products. … Azure continues to be the exclusive cloud provider for stateless OpenAI APIs. … Any stateless API interactions with OpenAI models arising from a partnership between OpenAI and any third party — including Amazon — will be hosted on Azure. … OpenAI’s first party products, including Frontier, will remain hosted on Azure.

Microsoft also highlighted that its conditions would remain in force until OpenAI reached AGI. The Financial Times noted that Microsoft even considered legal action if it had to enforce these agreement terms.

Consequently, the new consensus eliminates Microsoft’s exclusive rights and resolves the AWS legal risk. In a post on X, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy applauded the agreement, stating that it meant OpenAI’s models would become accessible to customers on AWS Bedrock.

Very interesting announcement from OpenAI this morning. We’re excited to make OpenAI’s models available directly to customers on Bedrock in the coming weeks, alongside the upcoming Stateful Runtime Environment. With this, builders will have even more choice to pick the right…

— Andy Jassy (@ajassy) April 27, 2026

While this arrangement is advantageous for OpenAI, Microsoft also gained certain benefits. The revised agreement now permits Microsoft to cease paying a revenue share to OpenAI, whereas OpenAI will continue to contribute a revenue share to Microsoft until 2030, albeit now subject to a limit.

Determining the exact cash flow to Microsoft is challenging, but it’s likely in the billions. Last quarter, Microsoft reported earnings of $7.5 billion in a single quarter from its investment in OpenAI.

Interestingly, Microsoft continues to be a major stakeholder in OpenAI, owning around 27% of the for-profit company, as stated in October. It benefits financially from OpenAI’s expansion, including the sales it generates on AWS.

The drawback, of course, is that Microsoft misses out on any additional cloud services it might have sold due to an exclusive arrangement with OpenAI.

That may be inconsequential. Just as OpenAI has been courting Microsoft’s largest competitors, Microsoft has established a new, friendly relationship with OpenAI adversary Anthropic, allowing the cloud giant to employ its Claude AI to enhance agentic products.

The primary beneficiaries in this scenario are enterprises, which can select their models and clouds while the giants compete with one another to serve their needs.

Here’s a timeline of the recent developments in Microsoft’s relationship with OpenAI:

In October, Microsoft and OpenAI revealed a new agreement designed to assist OpenAI in countering the lawsuit from Elon Musk regarding its corporate structure, which enables OpenAI to operate non-API-accessed products on different clouds.

In November, OpenAI and Amazon signed their first multiyear agreement, where OpenAI committed to $38 billion worth of AWS cloud services.

In February, Amazon announced an investment of up to $50 billion in OpenAI, contingent upon “certain conditions,” including the exclusive tech development and hosting arrangement for Frontier and stateful technology. On the same day, Microsoft denied that AWS would possess exclusive rights to that technology.

In March, the Financial Times reported that Microsoft was contemplating legal measures.

In April, OpenAI and Microsoft disclosed a new agreement, outlining a calendar-end date for their exclusive partnership and allowing OpenAI to operate all of its products on other clouds. Microsoft no longer has to pay revenue shares to OpenAI, and it retains its status as a significant shareholder in the firm.

Ineffable Intelligence, an AI laboratory established just a few months ago by former DeepMind scientist David Silver, has successfully secured $1.1 billion in funding with a valuation of $5.1 billion as it enters the competitive field of innovative AI models that aim to surpass large language models.

As stated on its newly launched website, Ineffable’s goal is to develop a “superlearner” that can acquire knowledge and abilities independently of human data, utilizing reinforcement learning—a method where AI systems learn through trial and error rather than from human-generated data. This aligns with Silver’s specialization.

Previously leading the reinforcement learning division at Google-owned DeepMind and having spent over ten years there, Silver is currently a professor at University College London.

During his tenure at DeepMind, Silver contributed to the creation of programs that triumphed over professional players in chess and Go, learning solely from experience and without being exposed to human strategies or game records—thus defeating the world’s leading computer systems in those games. The most prominent example was AlphaZero. In a similar vein, Ineffable Intelligence aspires for its superlearner to uncover all knowledge from its own experiences.

Although the superlearner may be inexperienced, the company’s ambition remains strong. “If we are successful, this will signify a scientific advancement of a scale akin to Darwin: where his law encapsulated all Life, our law will elucidate and cultivate all Intelligence,” the site asserts (capitals included).

Describing Ineffable Intelligence as “his life’s work” in a personal note shared on the company’s blog, Silver also mentioned to Wired that “all profits I generate from Ineffable will be directed to high-impact charities aimed at saving as many lives as feasible.”

The specifics regarding how, when, or how much revenue the venture will generate remain uncertain, yet this has clearly not obstructed fundraising efforts.

As reported by Wired, the funding round was spearheaded by Sequoia Capital and Lightspeed Venture Partners, with contributions from Index Ventures, Google, Nvidia, and others. Among these additional investors are the British Business Bank and Sovereign AI, the U.K.’s newly established sovereign venture fund focused on AI.

Accelerating to what’s termed pentacorn status — referring to companies valued over $5 billion — Ineffable Intelligence joins the ranks of AI startups initiated by prominent researchers whose names have attracted substantial seed investments so significant they’ve been humorously labeled coconut rounds (a playful exaggeration of the “seed” round). Just last month, AMI Labs, co-founded by Turing Award laureate and former Meta AI scientist Yann LeCun, raised $1.03 billion at a pre-money valuation of $3.5 billion. 

There are likely more companies of this kind. Recursive Superintelligence, co-founded by DeepMind’s ex-principal scientist Tim Rocktäschel and based in the U.K., is reported to have raised $500 million, with demand strong enough to elevate that figure to $1 billion. 

While Recursive maintains connections to the U.S., these firms indicate a growing momentum around London as an AI center. This is partly due to DeepMind’s sustained presence following its acquisition by Google in 2014. However, it isn’t only DeepMind. Jeff Bezos’ AI initiative, Project Prometheus, is allegedly negotiating for office space near Google’s AI hub. 

This evolution also fosters a powerful network of alumni, with several former DeepMind team members reportedly set to join Ineffable’s leadership.

A man charged with conducting cyberattacks for the Chinese government has been sent to the United States and could face over ten years in prison if found guilty. 

Last year, the U.S. Justice Department alleged that Xu Zewei operated as a contractor for the Chinese Ministry of State Security to carry out a number of cyberattacks. Prosecutors claimed Xu and his accomplice Zhang Yu targeted multiple U.S. universities in early 2020 to obtain research associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, they reportedly hacked thousands of email servers running Microsoft Exchange starting in March 2021, as part of a broad campaign linked to a Chinese-supported hacking group called Hafnium, which later became known as Silk Typhoon.

Xu was apprehended in Italy last year following a request from U.S. authorities. His attorney in Italy, Simona Candido, informed TechCrunch that Xu was extradited to the United States on Saturday and is currently detained in Houston, Texas. 

As per the U.S. Bureau of Prison’s website, an individual with the same name is being held at the Federal Detention Center in Houston. 

Once this story was released, the Justice Department made a public announcement regarding Xu’s extradition.

Xu’s attorney in the U.S., Dan Cogdell, told TechCrunch that during a court session on Monday morning, Xu entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. 

Court documents indicate that Xu appeared for his initial session in federal court and was placed back into custody. 

As the Justice Department stated when it first brought charges against the accused hackers, Xu purportedly worked for Shanghai Powerock Network, a Chinese company that prosecutors claimed “conducted hacking” on behalf of Beijing. Xu and his fellow hackers were said to have reported their actions directly to Chinese state officials in Shanghai.

Together with Zhang, he was part of the Hafnium group that is alleged to have exploited previously unknown security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange servers aiming to breach multiple American entities, including defense contractors, law firms, think tanks, and infectious disease researchers. 

Prosecutors assert that Hafnium hackers focused on over 60,000 organizations in the U.S. and succeeded in breaching more than 12,700 of them. 

The Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not respond to a request for comments.  

The Financial Times reported that the Chinese Foreign Ministry objected to Xu’s extradition and accused the U.S. government of “fabricating cases.” 

For years, the U.S. government has indicted alleged Chinese hackers, many of whom remain unapprehended. In 2022, Yanjun Xu received a 20-year sentence for hacking crimes, marking the first instance where a Chinese government intelligence officer was extradited to the United States, according to the DOJ. 

This story was revised to include the DOJ’s announcement of Xu’s extradition, details from new court records, and statements from Xu’s lawyer.

Skye, an iPhone application currently under private testing, aims to transform the way individuals engage with AI on their smartphones. Even prior to its official release, it has garnered attention online from both investors and “tens of thousands” of users, as stated by its creator — a sign that there may be a demand for a more AI-enabled iPhone among consumers.

Instead of rolling out a standard app or interacting with an AI chatbot, the startup is focused on developing an “agentic homescreen” for iPhones, utilizing iOS widgets as its means of interaction.

With these widgets, Skye aims to introduce a type of ambient intelligence to your device, providing customized insights regarding your local weather, current situations, health, and more, as mentioned in a post by its creator, known as signüll on X. The app is also capable of composing email responses, assisting you with meeting preparations, sending reminders, and notifying you of questionable transactions in your bank accounts. Its creator further asserts that it can offer location-specific suggestions and extra details about nearby businesses, neighborhoods, and attractions while you’re out.

Most of this information would be retrieved through user-granted authorized connections.

This application, being developed by a small team at Signull Labs, has already garnered investment interest, despite lacking a publicly available product.

An SEC filing indicates that the startup has raised over $3.58 million in pre-seed funding, in a round that concluded in September 2025. PitchBook also currently records New York-based Signull Labs’ funding along with a post-money valuation of $19.5 million.

Following the announcement of the startup’s objectives on X, signüll, whose real identity TechCrunch has confirmed to be Nirav Savjani according to SEC filings and other documents, claims that the app has garnered “tens of thousands” of users on the waitlist. If this claim holds true, it would indicate significant consumer interest in a more AI-integrated iPhone. (Additionally, there may be potential for a new kind of AI device, such as the speculated OpenAI smartphone, to have viable prospects.)

holy fuck the response to yesterday’s lunch has been absolutely unreal. ~million views on our video, tens of thousands added to a waitlist that was already 25k+, & hundreds & hundreds of emails & DMs from investors & ppl genuinely excited about what we’re building. our discord is… https://t.co/jqtU9zELqH

— signüll (@signulll) April 14, 2026

TechCrunch engaged with signüll, who provided further insights regarding the product and funding, while requesting to maintain his pseudonymity. TechCrunch declined, as signüll’s name is publicly listed in SEC documents related to Signull Labs. (TechCrunch stated they would still welcome an interview with him once he feels ready to go public.)

The founder mentioned his prior experiences at Google and Meta, although he lacks a recognizable LinkedIn profile. He also informed TechCrunch that Skye’s initial investors include a16z (Andreessen Horowitz), True Ventures, SV Angel, among others. Additionally, Offline Ventures lists Signull Labs in their online portfolio, as we discovered.

Since the announcement of Skye, Savjani has engaged in discussions on the TBPN podcast using his avatar and has been sharing updates on his experience with the app on X.

He informed TechCrunch that the Skye app is set to launch to its waitlisted users shortly, though he refrained from providing detailed timelines.

Tech giants like Microsoft and Meta have recently developed a strong affinity for natural gas, hastily constructing power plants powered by this fossil fuel to energize their data centers. However, their affection may be veering towards excessive — the expense of constructing such facilities has surged by 66% over the last two years, as indicated by a recent report from BloombergNEF.

Despite low natural gas prices in the U.S., even amid the ongoing conflict in Iran, the cost to erect a new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant has escalated from under $1,500 per kilowatt of generating capacity in 2023 to $2,157 last year, as revealed in the report. Additionally, the timeline for completing a new facility has now extended by 23%.

Data centers play a significant role in increasing the demand for electricity, prompting tech companies and utilities alike to invest in natural gas. The Trump administration has encouraged data center operators to “bring their own power,” but utilities generally transfer the expenses of new generation to consumers. This has resulted in a mounting backlash against data centers from the general populace.

While data centers are not the sole catalysts for new electricity demand, they are among the swiftest-growing consumers. Additions are projected to reach 2.7 times the current demand, escalating from 40 gigawatts presently to 106 gigawatts by 2035. This growth is partly driven by the sheer size of new data centers. Currently, just 10% of facilities are 50 megawatts or larger, but in the next decade, the average data center is set to surpass 100 megawatts.

Until recently, tech firms have preferred grid-connected data centers supported by power purchase agreements for wind, solar, and batteries. Nevertheless, the increasing electricity demand, spurred by AI and public discontent with data centers, has resulted in more new natural gas projects.

The rush for natural gas power plants has led to a scarcity of gas turbines. By year’s end, prices for this equipment, which accounts for up to 30% of a new power plant’s expenses, are anticipated to rise by 195% compared to 2019 prices. Furthermore, the production technique needed for gas turbines does not allow for rapid scaling. Consequently, waitlists are extending into the early 2030s.

Conversely, not everyone is fully committed to natural gas.

Google has begun to outline a fresh strategy for augmenting generating capacity on the grid that depends on renewables combined with long-duration energy storage, such as Form Energy’s massive iron-air batteries, capable of delivering electricity over a span of 100 hours. In contrast to gas turbines, solar panels and batteries have continuously decreased in price, providing an alternative to the soaring costs associated with natural gas power plants.

Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella does not express his beliefs as openly as Alex Karp from Palantir. Meanwhile, France is making moves to lessen its dependency on Windows, while its national intelligence agency has recently renewed its agreement with the increasingly controversial data analytics firm.

This contradiction illustrates Europe’s complicated separation from U.S. technology. After realizing the complications involved, governments across the continent are aiming to decrease their reliance on American companies. However, the actions taken until now have been inconsistent and often prompted by immediate needs.

The CLOUD Act changed the landscape

One significant response from Europe traces back to the initial Trump administration. Instated in 2018, the CLOUD Act compels U.S.-based technology firms to heed law enforcement demands for data, even if the data is kept abroad. This indicates that servers situated in Europe now provide insufficient security concerning crucial information.

Among the various data that governments possess, health-related information is often seen as the most delicate. Nevertheless, the CLOUD Act’s international reach did not prevent the U.K. from engaging with companies like Google, Microsoft, and Palantir regarding data from its National Health Service (NHS) during the pandemic. If detractors have their way, it might eventually emulate France’s approach.

A year ago, the French government disclosed that its Health Data Hub would transition from Microsoft Azure to a “sovereign cloud.” This contract has now been handed to Scaleway, a French cloud provider that is quickly expanding its network of data centers throughout Europe.

A subsidiary of the French group iliad, Scaleway was one of four firms that secured a €180 million sovereign cloud contract from the European Commission (approximately $211 million). The AWS European Sovereign Cloud, launched by Amazon to alleviate Europe’s apprehensions, did not make the final list. Nonetheless, some express concerns that the U.S. might still have a backdoor through one of the winners utilizing S3NS, a “trusted cloud” collaboration between Thales and Google Cloud.

Europe’s alternatives continue to face significant challenges

It isn’t the first instance where alternatives marketed as substitutes to Big Tech encounter obstacles stemming from their underlying dependencies. Qwant, for example, was once suggested as the default search engine for public officials in France while depending on Microsoft’s Bing — a collaboration that soured when the French entity accused the U.S. giant of exploiting its dominance. The responsible regulatory body declined to act, but Qwant had already initiated its own strategy.

In collaboration with the German nonprofit Ecosia, Qwant introduced Staan, a Europe-oriented and privacy-centric search index that could assist search engines like theirs in decreasing their reliance on Google and Bing. However, both allies still fall significantly short of their U.S. counterparts in visibility and reach — even the somewhat more popular Ecosia boasts only around 20 million users, not billions.

Acquiring market share is arguably the primary challenge for firms competing against U.S. behemoths — but public contracts could provide them with an advantage. For instance, the European Commission’s tender will also benefit French cloud providers Clever Cloud and OVHCloud, as well as STACKIT, which was established by Lidl’s parent company Schwarz Group but is now being commercialized.

Winning substantial contracts from European institutions may motivate other contenders to follow in the footsteps of Germany’s retail titan, or at least, that’s the aspiration. According to its supporters, “an additional goal of the tender was to inspire the market to provide sovereign digital solutions that align with EU laws and values.”

Nevertheless, the Commission’s strategy to minimize dependency on a single provider could have unintended consequences. On one hand, diversification may enhance resilience and alleviate concerns about dependence. However, it won’t necessarily be the most effective shortcut to nurturing Europe’s next trillion-dollar enterprise.

For skeptics and pragmatists, sovereign technology may appear commercially driven — a method to keep euros domestically. Yet, Europe’s intentional distancing from U.S. tech has not always resulted in contracts for its emerging companies. For instance, France is moving away from Windows towards the open-source operating system Linux. Institutions in Austria, Denmark, Italy, and Germany are similarly seeking to substitute Microsoft’s suite with open-source options like LibreOffice.

This transition often coincides with a “build, don’t buy” mindset that has faced criticism. France’s Court of Auditors has raised questions regarding expenditures on in-house solutions such as Visio, an alleged alternative to Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Financial publication Les Echos has also covered the backlash heard within the tech ecosystem, including this rhetorical inquiry: “If the government doesn’t set a precedent, how can you expect large private enterprises to follow?”

Private buyers may influence the outcome

Indeed, large private corporations have not followed the trend much. The German airline Lufthansa opted for Elon Musk-supported Starlink for its Wi-Fi service. Air France made a similar choice, as did France’s partially state-controlled airline — and it’s possible that the state-owned French railway company SNCF will follow suit.

Whether major corporations select alternatives to U.S. providers largely hinges on having technologically appealing European solutions. In a disagreement with Poland, Musk claimed that “there is no substitute for Starlink” — however, European authorities aim to refute this assertion. Public sentiment could also play a role, potentially influencing many European individuals and officials to move away from X.

Being non-American is becoming a selling point

After President Trump hinted at exerting control over Greenland, applications for boycotting American products surged to the top of the Danish App Store — illustrating that the desire to limit U.S. tech is broadening. Pressure on European governments to reevaluate their agreements is also growing, and Palantir’s recent mini-manifesto is unlikely to aid its position in the EU and the U.K.

Tech billionaires publicly defending positions that many Europeans oppose also indicates that the separation is mutual. When Meta opted to postpone the EU release of Threads due to concerns regarding European regulations, it served as a reminder that the region is merely a secondary market for tech giants, and they are able to disregard it.

Conversely, this opens a market opportunity for solutions designed for Europe, its diverse languages, and cultural nuances. This alone should naturally stimulate demand in local markets, with additional momentum if advocates of the EuroStack initiative succeed in mandating local purchasing for Europe’s public sector. 

Europe may aspire to support European businesses, but there’s also hope that “sovereign tech” will find success internationally. Mistral AI reportedly witnessed a spike in revenues for being an alternative to OpenAI. At the same time, the Canadian and German administrations are backing Cohere’s merger with Aleph Alpha to establish a “transatlantic AI powerhouse” catering to enterprises and governments globally. By 2026, not being American — nor Chinese or Russian — is increasingly viewed as a competitive advantage.