At first glance, it may seem counterintuitive that mesh routers don't come with visible external antennas like traditional Wi-Fi routers do. After all, a common assumption is that more prominent antenna presence equates to better signal strength and range.

However, experts argue that burying antennas within mesh routers actually presents a technical advantage in terms of design goals. This approach allows for a more streamlined aesthetic while also reducing potential interference from external sources.

In contrast to traditional single-router systems, mesh networks prioritize seamless communication between individual units rather than maximizing the signal's reach. As a result, the primary focus is on ensuring efficient backhaul connections between routers rather than amplifying range.

The absence of external antennas in mesh routers may seem like an oversight at first, but it's actually a deliberate design choice that benefits overall system performance.

Mesh Wi-Fi systems rely on internal antennas to provide seamless connections and handovers between devices. These omnidirectional antennas cast a wide net, allowing routers to quickly detect nearby devices and switch connection duties as needed, maintaining consistent bandwidth throughout the process.

The use of external antennas can introduce potential issues with mesh technology. If adjustable, misaligned external antennas can weaken connection strength to certain devices, while their long design makes them susceptible to breakage during moves or accidental knocks on tall surfaces.

Better mesh routers may require a larger number of internal antennas than usual due to their dedicated backhaul setup. This configuration splits bandwidth between the router's components and connected devices, potentially slowing down device performance if not properly balanced. A cluttered array of external antennas would compromise both functionality and aesthetics.

Internal antennas do have some drawbacks, however. They can be more prone to interference from nearby electronic components, but this issue has been addressed through design optimizations that minimize its impact on system performance.

The cost of manufacturing external antennas can be a significant factor for mesh Wi-Fi vendors. While the price increase may seem minor for an individual router, it can add up quickly when considering thousands or even millions of units produced.

Moving internal antennas can also enable more streamlined and minimalist designs that appeal to consumers. This is particularly important for mesh systems, which often require multiple routers placed throughout a home. Aesthetics play a role in the decision-making process, as many shoppers prefer devices that blend into their surroundings rather than standing out like traditional routers.

The shift towards internal antennas has proven to be a winning strategy for mesh Wi-Fi vendors, offering both performance advantages and cost savings.

Engadget: https://www.engadget.com/2277036/why-mesh-wifi-systems-dont-have-antennas-routers-do/

A new neurotechnology startup has emerged in a rapidly growing field, aiming to translate brain signals into practical actions. The company joins a list of prominent players, including Elon Musk's Neuralink, Synchron, Paradromics, and Precision Neuroscience, all working on brain-computer interfaces for individuals who have lost motor or speech abilities.

These existing approaches typically require surgical intervention, which is why the founder and CEO of Bridge, Will Biederman, has chosen to take a different route. According to Biederman, his vision diverges from those of other companies in this field, and he wants to develop a wearable device that can be used by many more people than an implanted brain-computer interface.

Biederman developed the chip initially licensed for use by Neuralink as part of his PhD work, but his goal with Bridge is to create a non-invasive solution. This contrasts with the 100 or so individuals worldwide who have received implanted brain-computer interfaces as part of clinical trials, including those testing Neuralink's device.

The risks associated with neurosurgery cannot be underestimated, Biederman emphasizes, which means that any new devices in this space must offer high levels of safety and benefit.

The performance of wearable brain-computer interfaces has been hindered by poor signal quality due to the weakening of electrical signals as they pass through bone and skin before reaching external sensors.

As a result, most companies in this space have resorted to recording electrical impulses directly from neurons in the brain, which has enabled paralyzed individuals to control electronic devices, move robotic arms, and communicate in real time with their thoughts.

However, Bridge Neurotech is challenging conventional wisdom by exploring an alternative approach using ultrasound technology. This method involves bouncing high-frequency sound waves off moving red blood cells to measure the speed and direction of blood flow in the brain.

Research has shown that fluctuations in blood flow closely follow neural activity, making it a viable indirect indicator of brain function. Bridge Neurotech is currently trialing an instrument that uses this principle to image brain function in the UK.

The company's approach differs from those taken by Neuralink and others, which rely on direct recordings from neurons. This distinction has sparked debate among experts, with some arguing that the natural delay between neural activity and blood flow changes could be a significant drawback for applications requiring real-time feedback.

The ultrasound-based brain-computer interface developed by Bridge neurotech startup has a notable limitation - it can only capture slower variations in neural activity. This lag time could be a significant issue for applications requiring real-time feedback, such as controlling robotic limbs or typing rapidly.

To address this challenge, Bridge is planning to utilize predictive AI models to minimize the delay and enhance the performance of its interface. By leveraging machine learning algorithms, the company aims to bridge the gap between neural activity and blood flow changes.

The startup's first clinical study is underway in Redwood City, California, where a small group of volunteers will have an ultrasound probe placed on the side of their head. This observational study involves healthy adults as well as individuals who have undergone skull surgery, with no treatments or diagnoses involved.

The device used by Bridge resembles something akin to headphones and sits on the temporal window above the ear. The probes are equipped with semiconductor silicon chips from Butterfly Network's portable ultrasound technology, which will record brain activity while participants engage in various activities like listening, watching, moving, and speaking.

The skull's thinnest part makes it an ideal location for imaging brain activity through ultrasound technology, according to Bridge co-founder Biederman. This is crucial because bone can scatter and absorb sound waves, posing technical challenges for noninvasive imaging.

Researchers at Caltech and the University of Southern California had previously demonstrated the feasibility of using ultrasound-based brain-computer interfaces in a 2024 study, but their method required part of the skull to be surgically removed. This "window" allowed ultrasound waves to pass through, enabling researchers to read and decode brain activity. Bridge will need to overcome this technical hurdle if it is to succeed with its noninvasive interface vision.

Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/bridge-neurotech-startup-rival-sam-altman-merge-labs/

Motorola, on the other hand, has been producing several generations of updated Razrs, including the flagship 2026 Razr Ultra. This phone is priced significantly lower than Apple's offering, coming in at a substantial $500 less than the iPhone Duo's hefty price tag of $2,000.

One of the main attractions of Motorola's Razr Ultra is that it offers an alternative to the Apple ecosystem, which can be restrictive for some users. Those who prefer Android have more flexibility with their phone choices, as they're not reliant on a single brand for their hardware needs.

The iPhone Duo and Razr Ultra cater to different demographics, making them appealing to distinct groups of consumers. This difference in target market is likely to influence how buyers perceive these two foldable phones, with some being drawn to the sleek design of one over the other.

As we compare the features and functionality of these two devices, it becomes clear that they have distinct strengths and weaknesses, making it challenging for users to decide which one suits their needs best. In this article, we'll delve into the details of each phone, highlighting their key differences and similarities.

The design choices made by Motorola and Apple for their foldable phones reveal distinct philosophies on how to create a compact device that's easy to carry around. The Motorola Razr Ultra takes on a traditional candybar shape when unfolded, measuring 7 inches diagonally, aiming to be as slim as possible even if it means sacrificing some features on its external screen. In contrast, the iPhone Duo resembles a passport and operates like a regular iPhone when closed, opening up to reveal a 7.6-inch display with a matte finish reminiscent of an iPad.

The Duo's design allows for more functionality, especially in terms of multitasking, as it can enable split-screen capabilities on compatible iPhone apps. This is particularly appealing for users looking to get work done with their foldable device. Meanwhile, the Ultra prioritizes compactness and portability over additional features, making it easier to slip into a pocket or handbag.

In terms of performance, there's not a significant gap between the two devices, despite differences in processing power. The Motorola Razr Ultra is equipped with a fast Snapdragon 8 Elite processor and 16GB of RAM, while Apple's iPhone Duo will likely outperform thanks to its newer A20 Pro chip and iOS optimizations. However, for most apps, users won't notice a substantial difference.

The choice between these two foldable phones ultimately comes down to personal preference regarding design and functionality. While the Motorola Razr Ultra excels in terms of compactness, the iPhone Duo offers more versatility with its ability to multitask and expand its display.

The cameras of both devices have two rear shooters, with one wide and one ultra-wide lens. The Motorola Razr Ultra's rear camera has a slightly higher resolution at 50 megapixels, compared to the iPhone Duo's 48 megapixels. However, the engineering behind Apple's cameras is typically exceptional, often earning top ratings in the industry.

The front camera of the Motorola Razr Ultra boasts a higher resolution at 50 megapixels, whereas the iPhone Duo caps its front camera at 12 megapixels. The Duo also features an under-screen internal camera, but it may not be as effective as the rear sensors available when the phone is unfolded and flipped.

The battery life of both devices has been tested in video-based scenarios, with the Motorola Razr Ultra lasting approximately 31 hours. Apple claims a comparable battery life for the iPhone Duo when using its internal display. In practical terms, both phones should be able to last an entire day in mixed usage.

Regarding durability, both devices feature hardened ceramic glass to protect their exposed front displays. However, the iPhone Duo has a superior IP68 rating for dust and water resistance compared to the Motorola Razr Ultra's IP48 rating. This means that while both phones can withstand short submersion in fresh water, the Ultra may be more vulnerable to dust particles under a millimeter.

The implications of these differences in camera and durability specifications are likely to vary depending on individual usage patterns and preferences. For instance, users who prioritize selfies may prefer the iPhone Duo's rear sensors when unfolded, while those who value ruggedness may opt for the Duo's superior IP68 rating.

The decision between these two foldable devices ultimately comes down to three key factors: price, software, and personal use case. The Motorola Razr Ultra's hefty $1,500 price tag is already a significant barrier for many smartphone shoppers, making the iPhone Duo's even higher price of up to $3,200 seem even more daunting.

For those invested in either iOS or Android ecosystems, there may not be enough incentive to switch to one of these foldables. The iPhone 18 Pro offers a more affordable non-folding option, while Android fans have access to numerous other book-style foldables from manufacturers like Motorola and Samsung.

The variety of options available also means that consumers should consider whether they truly need a foldable device at all. If storage space is the primary concern, it may be wiser to rethink one's bag or pocket accessories rather than splurging on an Ultra.

When considering productivity, pairing a non-folding iPhone with a laptop like the MacBook Neo could potentially offer more functionality while saving money compared to purchasing a Duo.

Ultimately, it seems that these foldables are best suited for those who require specific features and can justify the high price point, but for most users, other options may be more practical and cost-effective.

Engadget: https://www.engadget.com/2277014/apple-iphone-duo-vs-motorola-razr-ultra-how-foldables-compare/