News

• GTA 6 fans claim to have spotted an easter egg in GTA Online
• A painting seemingly portrays GTA 6's map
• Fans are convinced it was intentionally placed by Rockstar

Grand Theft Auto 6 fans are convinced they've spotted an easter egg for the game's map in GTA Online.

The long-awaited Rockstar game is four months away, and while we may have recently received a ton of new information about GTA 6 following its pre-order release, Trailer 3 is still nowhere in sight, despite comments from Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick suggesting the game's marketing campaign should kick off this summer.

In the meantime, fans are spending their time unpacking every single frame of the first two trailers, trying to find anything new, including a split-second nod to fan-favorite Vice City character Tommy Vercetti.

Now, fans claim that an easter egg has been slipped into the latest GTA Online update, The Kortz Center Heist. Redditor JaneBunnFan posted their find on the GTA 6 subreddit, showing a framed painting, which honestly looks like an abstract green blob to me, but the user is convinced it's the GTA 6 map, Leonida.

Others seem to agree, with one fan suggesting that if you rotate the image at a certain angle, it looks like GTA 6's fan-made mapping project.

"100% has to be. They said their marketing is going to be creative," one fan said.

Others put their Adobe Photoshop skills to use to compare their scales, while others have marked off certain shapes from the painting to show the similarities to the map, claiming that it could be Lake Leonida, not the entire map.

"OKAY SO..." another user began, "If you zoom in, crop, rotate approximately 200 degrees, reverse it by mirroring the image (which makes sense to do because it’s hanging on the wall. Mirrors hang), you DEFINITELY get what looks to be a shape similar to what the GTA VI mapping project has come up with and therefore we must conclude…. I BOTH HATE AND LOVE THIS SUB."

GTA 6 officially launches on November 19, but physical copies don't come with a disc, but a digital download code. Despite the initial controversy surrounding the decision, reports suggest that the physical edition is a top seller at multiple retailers.

Trailer 3 could arrive this month if Rockstar goes ahead and follows its Red Dead Redemption 2 playbook.

Every year, Samsung's S-series lineup consists of three models. There's the entry-level option — in this case, the Galaxy S26 — followed by mid- and high-end offerings, which in 2026 are the Galaxy S26 Plus and Galaxy S26 Ultra. While the Ultra steals most of the headlines, the Galaxy S26 is no slouch. It's a great, well-rounded option for those who want a compact phone or don't want to shell out silly money on buying one of the very best Android phones.

The S26 features a slightly tweaked design versus the Galaxy S25, with a new pill-shaped camera array on the back, a 6.3-inch display, and several color options. Tucked underneath its exterior is a Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset, 12GB of RAM, and storage options that now start at 256GB (RIP 128GB). All these specs, along with Android 16 and Samsung's feature-packed One UI 8.5 software, combine for a smooth mobile experience.

In terms of endurance, the Galaxy S26's 4,300mAh battery routinely delivered more than a full day of use in my testing, often leaving me with enough juice to go into the next day. And its trio of rear-facing cameras does the job, as does the selfie cam.

One downside is the $100 / £80 price increase over last year's model (though Australian buyers actually get a AU$50 saving). Yes, this is an industry-wide trend right now — but that doesn't make the numbers feel any better. Thankfully, while the S26 starts at $899 / £879 / AU$1,349, it can often be found on sale.

Another blemish is the limited 25W charging speed and lack of internal magnets to fully support Qi2 chargers and accessories without a case.

Overall, then, if you can find the Galaxy S26 on sale and want to stay within the Samsung ecosystem, it's a great pick-up. However, there's stiff competition at this price point — and below it, too.

• Starts at $899 / £879 / AU$1,349 for 256GB + 12GB RAM

Samsung announced the Galaxy S26 line, including the base S26, S26 Plus and S26 Ultra, on February 25, 2026. Preorders opened the same day, and deliveries started March 11.

You can buy the S26 directly from Samsung with a starting price of $899 / £879 / AU$1,349 (which represents a $100 / £80 increase and AU$50 decrease versus the S25). However, Samsung frequently offers discounts, and at the time of writing, the S26 is going for $799 in the US.

Regardless of where you're buying the phone, you'll get double the starting storage versus previous entry-level S-series models (256GB vs 128GB).

Buying directly from Samsung means you'll have two additional color options in Silver Shadow and Pink Gold. Picking it up from third-party retailers like Best Buy and Amazon, or a wireless carrier such as Google Fi or Verizon, limits you to Cobalt Violet, Sky Blue, White, or Black.

• Value score: 3 / 5

Here's a breakdown of the Samsung Galaxy S26's key specs:

Dimensions:

149.6 x 71.7 x 7.2 mm

Weight:

167g

Display:

6.3-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2x

Resolution:

2340 x 1080

Refresh rate:

120 Hz

Peak brightness:

2,600 nits

CPU:

Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5

RAM:

12GB

Storage:

256GB, 512GB

OS:

Android 16 with One UI 8.5

Cameras:

50MP main, 12MP ultra-wide, 10MP telephoto with 3x optical zoom

Selfie Camera:

12MP

Battery:

4,300mAh

Charging:

25W wired, 15W wireless

Colors:

Cobalt Violet, Sky Blue, White, Black, Silver Shadow, Pink Gold

• Same core design as the S25
• New camera array on the back

At first glance, it'd be easy to mistake the S26 for last year's S25. The design differences are small. The biggest visual change is the triple camera array on the back of the phone. Instead of each lens protruding out of the phone's housing, there's a single pill-shaped camera bump. Otherwise, the display is only slightly bigger at 6.3 inches compared to the S25's 6.2 inches. That increase also means the overall size of the phone grew a bit, too. The S26 measures 149.6 x 71.7 x 7.2 mm and weighs 167g.

As previously mentioned, there are a total of six color options available: Cobalt Violet, Sky Blue, White, Black, Silver Shadow, and Pink Gold — the latter two of which are exclusive to Samsung.

My daily drivers are an iPhone 15 Pro Max and a Pixel 10 Pro XL, both of which are much larger devices than the S26. Yet, I rather enjoyed the smaller form factor of the S26, and I didn't feel like the smaller display was too small at any time during my testing.

I've often debated whether I should stop using the biggest phone every phone maker offers, and after using the S26 for a couple of weeks, that internal debate is stronger than ever.

The only area I struggled with regarding the design of the Galaxy S26 was the orientation of the sleep/wake button and the volume up/down buttons on the right edge. I found myself instinctively reaching for the volume down button while scrolling through Reels on Instagram, only to press the sleep/wake button and lock the phone. My muscle memory just couldn't adjust to the S26's arrangement, which is the exact opposite of the Pixel 10 Pro XL's, which has volume buttons below the sleep/wake on the same side of its housing.

On the bottom, you'll find a nano-SIM card slot (I thought we were done with physical SIMs?!) and a USB-C port. The left side and top edge of the phone are completely clean.

• Design score: 4 / 5

• Easy to use in direct sunlight
• Smooth refresh rate

The Galaxy S26 features a 6.3-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2X display with a 2340 x 1080 resolution and an adaptive 120Hz refresh rate. All these technical specs mean one simple thing: it looks fantastic.

Everything from standard text messages to high-res YouTube clips appears incredibly sharp. Gaming is equally impressive; the display delivers fluid, stutter-free graphics in fast-paced titles like Asphalt Legends, which can take full advantage of the S26's 120Hz refresh rate.

The AMOLED panel truly shines — literally — when you take it outdoors, thanks to a rated peak brightness of 2,600 nits. Even under direct midday sun, I had absolutely no trouble reading the screen or navigating through apps.

There's really not much more to say about the Galaxy S26's screen other than it looks great. No issues. 10/10, would recommend.

• Display score: 5 / 5

• 7 years of software updates
• Multitasking features are nice-to-haves

The Galaxy S26 runs Android 16 with Samsung's One UI 8.5 adding customizations and features to the overall experience. If you've ever used a Samsung phone or tablet, you'll feel right at home with the S26's interface.

One UI used to feel duplicative of the base Android experience, particularly when it came to the apps preinstalled on a phone. For instance, Samsung Messages and Google Messages were both available. However, Samsung recently retired Messages in favor of Google's offering.

Samsung hasn't fully given up on its own apps. The Samsung Browser and Gallery are still available, for example. It's still confusing and a cluttered user experience, but it is getting better.

Default apps aside, One UI is mostly interface tweaks and customizations you don't see on, say, a Pixel phone. For instance, the new gestures to view your notifications or the quick settings panel in One UI 8.5 have taken me some getting used to.

Swiping down from the left three-quarters of the screen opens your notification panel, while swiping down from the top-right quarter reveals your quick settings.

I've been using a Galaxy Z Fold 7 running One UI 8.5 for a few months and adjusted to the new interaction with little effort, but for some reason, the smaller screen of the Galaxy S26 keeps tripping me up.

But I digress.

Galaxy AI is a big part of Samsung's AI initiative. You can use Galaxy AI to do things like let AI screen an incoming call, use writing and editing tools, photo editing, summarize and prioritize notifications, and even get personalized health insights using your Samsung Health data.

The feature list reads like a standard AI suite on any 2026 phone. That's not a bad thing, by any means.

I used the editing tool (Object Eraser) in the Gallery app to remove objects from photos a few times, and each time it nailed it. I'm not a huge fan of converting photos into pop art or retro anime, but in my brief experimentation with that feature, it mostly worked.

Having said all this, the redundancy of every phone maker and major tech company offering its own version of the same AI features can get overwhelming and confusing for users. Hopefully, after the AI boom goes bust, the mass spamming of AI features for the sake of AI features will stop.

Beyond Galaxy AI, one of my favorite features of the S26's software experience is the ability to touch and drag down on a notification to instantly create a small window for that app. It's super helpful when you want to reply to a message or continue a conversation without switching apps. The first time I triggered it was by accident, but once I figured out how it works, I'd routinely swipe down on the pop-up for an alert, do what I needed to do, and then close out the app — all without leaving whatever app I was in at the time. All phones should offer similar multitasking features.

• Software score: 4 / 5

• 50MP main camera
• 12MP ultra-wide
• 10MP telephoto

The camera housing on the S26 might be new, but the actual hardware is unchanged from the S25. You still get a 50MP main camera, a 12MP ultra-wide, and a 10MP telephoto lens with 3x optical zoom.

I had fun taking photos with the S26. Samsung phones have historically taken photos that are slightly over-saturated, and sometimes overexposed, but that look pretty darn good at the end of the day, and the S26 is no different.

The phone performed beautifully in brightly lit environments, like when I snapped pics of the new Rivian R2 after a test drive. It also did a solid job of preserving detail and color late in the afternoon as the sun went down during my evening walks.

The telephoto lens works well up to its 3x optical limit, but its digital zoom past that point is hit or miss, especially once you get near the 30x limit. I had hoped I'd be able to read a 'no trespassing' sign posted down the street from me at 30x zoom, and while some of the text is legible, it's difficult to read.

The phone's 12MP front-facing hole-punch camera is centered along the top of its display. It takes good selfies, although it makes me look old. Or maybe I'm getting old. It's probably the latter. Sigh.

• Camera score: 4 / 5

• Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset
• 12GB memory
• 256GB starting storage

The Galaxy S26 is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset, with 12GB of memory and 256GB or 512GB of storage.

All of that combines to provide a smooth overall experience, with no obvious slowdowns in daily use. I spent my time testing the S26 using it as I would my daily phone.

I made random calls, talked in group chats and with my wife and kids, took pics of random stuff, played a game once in a while, streamed music, and watched some videos. The phone handled everything I put it through without any hiccups. Apps launched fast, and multitasking didn't trigger any lag or unresponsiveness.

One thing I noticed while gaming and running benchmarks is that the S26 gets hot. While it never becomes too hot to hold, it can become uncomfortable during extended gaming sessions. After noticing the temperature rise during a benchmark test, I grabbed my infrared thermometer and measured it at 113 degrees Fahrenheit.

Although I didn't have a case to test with, I imagine a case will likely cause the phone to heat up faster and potentially throttle its performance. This isn't a dealbreaker, but it's something to keep in mind.

Geekbench 6 single-core

3,616

Geekbench 6 multi-core

10,827

3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress Test best

6,933

3DMark Wild Life Extreme Stress Test low

2,962

3DMark Solar Bay

12,007

• Performance score: 4 / 5

• 4,300mAh battery
• 25W wired charging
• 15W wireless charging

Inside the Galaxy S26 is a 4,300mAh battery that's big enough to power through 30 hours of continuous video playback, according to Samsung's claims. In practice, that claim held up. I was easily able to get through a full day of heavy use — starting at 6am and ending around 10pm — and still have enough juice left to make it into the lunch hour the following day.

I felt spoiled while testing the S26, especially since my aging iPhone 15 Pro Max now needs to be recharged multiple times a day.

I normally don't leave my phone overnight without plugging it in, letting it drain precious battery in the process. But I wanted to see just how far I could push the S26's battery, and it delivered. I routinely saw a drop in charge of 4-5% overnight.

When it came time to charge the S26, using a 25W power adapter nets you an 18% charge from empty in 15 minutes. A full charge with the same adapter took 1 hour and 35 minutes. That's slightly slower than the Motorola Razr Plus 2026 I recently tested, but to be expected considering the Razr charges at up to 45W.

Wireless charging is an option at 15W with support for the Qi2 standard. However, there are no magnets in the phone to hold any compatible wireless charger or accessory in place. Instead, you'll need to buy a Qi2-compatible case that includes a ring of magnets to take full advantage of the feature.

I'm sure this is a design and cost-saving decision, but it's an odd one. As someone who uses a MagSafe wallet and has MagSafe chargers all over my home, office, and even in my truck, I've noticed the lack of magnets in the Galaxy S26 daily. At least fixing the problem is just a simple case purchase away.

The S26 also supports reverse wireless charging at up to 4.5W, which isn't a whole lot of power, but it's perfect for those situations when you need to recharge your smartwatch or wireless earbuds while on the go.

• Battery score: 4 / 5

Attributes

Notes

Rating

Value

An unwelcome price increase over last year's model.

3 / 5

Design

A tried-and-true design that looks great.

4 / 5

Display

A display that hits all the marks of what you'd want in a flagship phone.

5 / 5

Software

Android 16 and One UI 8.5 team up to provide a reliable experience.

4 / 5

Cameras

All three cameras take solid pics, but don't rely on the telephoto past 3x.

4 / 5

Performance

Quick and powerful, but the phone does get hot during intense tasks.

4 / 5

Battery

All-day battery life is welcome, but slow charging speeds are not.

4 / 5

You want a Samsung phone
The base S26 doesn't totally break the bank, but you are paying more for a Samsung phone than you would with, say, a Google Pixel. But if you're in the Samsung ecosystem, then that extra expense may be worth it.

You want a workhorse
The Galaxy S26's performance doesn't know when to quit. Gaming, multitasking, and doom-scrolling aren't an issue — just don't play graphically intensive titles for too long!

You want all-day battery life
The S26's 4,300mAh battery powered through a full day and then some in our testing.

You want faster charging
Being limited to 25W wired charging means topping off your battery in a hurry just isn't going to happen.

You want full magnetic Qi2 support
The S26 supports the Qi2 wireless charging standard, but you won't find a single magnet on the back of the phone. You'll have to buy a magnet-equipped case for that.

Google Pixel 10
Google's Pixel 10 checks all of the same boxes as the Galaxy S26, with a starting price of $799. It often goes on sale for much less than that, too.

Read our full Google Pixel 10 review

Apple iPhone 17
It doesn't run Android, but Apple's iPhone 17 matches the S26's size, performance, battery life, and camera quality, with a starting price of $799.

Read our full iPhone 17 review

☑️ 100s of smartphones reviewed
☑️ 15 years of product testing
☑️ Over 16,000 products reviewed in total
☑️ Nearly 200,000 hours testing tech

I spent two weeks testing the Galaxy S26, using it as I would my everyday smartphone. I sent countless BlueBubble messages, played games, streamed music, and watched far more TheBurntPeanut streams and clips than I care to admit. I took pics of my food, my pets, and other daily randomness, as one does.

Read more about how we test

First tested July 2026

In a monoculture, a single species or type dominates a system, to the exclusion of all others.

The term comes from agriculture, when a field is planted entirely with one crop. It may be efficient and easy to manage, but a single disease, pest, or environmental change can wipe out the entire yield.

Different varieties have different vulnerabilities, so a field of diverse crops can contain the damage naturally. A monoculture has no such defense.

That same monoculture condition is now occurring in software development.

Many organizations using AI tools for coding rely on a single AI model to both generate code and review it. On paper, this is efficient. But in reality, it creates a closed loop where the reviewer can't catch things that the generator is blind to.

Security flaws go undetected in reviews and suboptimal architectural decisions go unchallenged because the reviewing system shares the same assumptions as the system that produced the code.

When issues arise, engineers look at recent commits, failed deployments, and configuration changes. The assumption that a single AI platform can objectively review its own output is rarely questioned.

The solution to an agricultural monoculture is to introduce different crop varieties with different vulnerabilities, so that no single threat can devastate the entire field. The same is true in AI coding monocultures. Organizations need to introduce AI tools that are genuinely independent of the systems they're reviewing.

So, why can't the same AI just review its own work?

Asking a coding assistant to review itself is like asking a human to proofread their own writing. The human may catch typos and grammatical errors, but they often won't catch logical inconsistencies or arguments that don't hold up.

This is because the human writer often subconsciously reads what they meant to write rather than what is actually on the page. A model reviewing its own output does the same thing; it evaluates the output against the same patterns and objectives that produced it in the first place.

Similarly, an AI model trained on the same data and optimized for the same signals as the model that wrote the code will carry the same blind spots. It will catch what it's capable of catching, and miss the things that the generating model missed.

Finance figured out this separation-of-duties principle long ago. If the same person who initiates a transaction can also approve it, that opens the door to fraudulent or erroneous transactions. The approval step only works if the approver is independent of the person who initiated the transaction.

Likewise, organizations must introduce a dedicated review tool that operates independently of the system that generated the code. Choosing a different vendor won't automatically solve the problem if the underlying models share the same training data or architectural assumptions.

Genuine independence requires different training data and different signals, and the tool must specifically be built for scrutiny, not completion.

A dedicated review tool is a strong starting point, but separation of duties alone isn't enough. The same principle that argues against a single AI doing everything also applies within the review function itself.

Code review is not a single task. Finding bugs, enforcing standards, assessing risk, and understanding how a change fits into the broader system are separate forms of reasoning, even when they appear in the same pull request.

Asking one agent to handle all of them at once forces tradeoffs between depth, speed, and coverage. In other words, some things will get less attention than they require.

Just as a mature security architecture layers independent controls so that what one misses another catches, a mature review architecture assigns distinct responsibilities to systems optimized for each one.

In practice that might mean one agent focused specifically on security vulnerabilities, another enforcing architectural standards and coding conventions, a third assessing the blast radius of a change, and a human reviewer making the final judgment call on anything flagged as high risk.

Each layer asks different questions and operates on different signals. The goal is ensuring that no single blind spot, including those shared across an AI monoculture, can let a problem through unchallenged.

As AI generates a larger share of production code, organizations will need to designate clear ownership over which AI does what, and ensure the review function doesn't get quietly collapsed into the generation function in the name of efficiency. That responsibility will increasingly fall on platform engineering teams.

The role has traditionally been about making developers more productive by simplifying tooling, maintaining infrastructure, and reducing friction. That work hasn't disappeared, but as developers move from writing code themselves to directing agents that write it for them, platform engineers will need to govern the systems that generate code, not just maintain them.

That means owning the standards those agents follow and ensuring visibility into what’s actually happening across the codebase. Most importantly, it means treating code generation and code review as distinct functions that require distinct capabilities, and resisting the organizational pressure to consolidate them into a single platform because it's simpler to manage.

As AI handles more of the writing and reviewing, accumulated institutional knowledge gets lost. Why was that architectural decision made two years ago? Which parts of the codebase affect each other in ways that aren't obvious? What broke before and why? AI coding tools don't carry any of that context. They look at the task in front of them, complete it, and move on.

This kind of institutional knowledge used to live in the heads of the engineers who wrote and reviewed the code. As AI takes over more of that work, it needs to be captured in places such as documented standards and recorded review decisions or it simply vanishes. When organizations build that kind of memory into their development process, their systems get smarter about their codebase over time.

That means a review function that doesn't just flag problems in isolation, but learns the organization's standards, remembers past decisions, and understands how different parts of the codebase connect and depend on each other.

The AI monoculture risk is what happens when no one asks whether the system reviewing the code is genuinely independent of the system that wrote it.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently argued that the real opportunity in AI is not in picking the best model, but in building a learning loop where human knowledge and AI capability compound together, and that a company should be able to swap out a generalist model without losing the expertise built into its own systems.

That's only possible if the governance infrastructure is built at the same pace as the generation capability.

The organizations that do that early will be in a much better position than those that wait until something breaks.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best vibe coding tools.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

As AI becomes a greater and more important presence in our everyday lives, the way we interact with the "traditional" internet is changing.

For so long the main way to access the internet, the web browser is now having to rethink how to appeal to an audience which often seeks AI-first interaction - raising new challenges for developers to create the best and most interactive experience.

We spoke to Ajit Varma, Head of Firefox at Mozilla, to find out more.

• The web has always been built on the principles of openness and interoperability, but today's internet is increasingly shaped by a handful of dominant platforms and AI-powered services. What does the 'open web' mean in 2026, and why does it still matter?

The open web matters more today than it has in years because AI is changing how people experience the internet. As a small number of platforms become the gateway to search, content and AI-powered services, it's becoming easier for a handful of companies to shape what people see and how they interact online.

That's why the principles of the open web still matter. Common standards mean developers can build without asking permission from a dominant platform, and users can choose how they access the web rather than being locked into a single ecosystem. Those principles have driven innovation for decades, and they're just as important as AI reshapes the internet.

The challenge now isn't simply keeping the web open as it exists today. It's making sure openness evolves alongside AI, so the next generation of the internet remains competitive, interoperable and accessible to everyone

• AI is changing the way people discover information and interact with the internet. How do you see browsers evolving over the next five years, and what role should they play in helping users navigate an increasingly AI-driven web while maintaining trust and choice?

Over the next five years, you’ll start to see more divergences in how browsers treat AI. Many companies will use the browser to try and push a specific AI agenda but at Firefox we’re focused on how AI can make the tasks a user wants to do in a browser better. This includes things like a personal agent that can help a user accomplish tasks, navigating the web through voice, making the web more enjoyable, and creating new vibe-coded extensions and mini-apps.

We’ll do all this in a way that is user centric. The browser should adapt to the user, rather than the other way round. Some people will want AI integrated into their everyday browsing, while others will prefer to use it for specific tasks. Maintaining trust means supporting those preferences and letting people decide how much they use AI.

Users should be able to choose any model they want including open and local models. The important thing is preserving that flexibility, so people can browse, search and get things done in a way that feels natural to them.

• Privacy has long been a core part of Mozilla's mission, but consumers also expect convenience and highly personalised online experiences. How do you strike the right balance between protecting users' privacy and delivering the features people now expect from modern web experiences?

For me, striking the right balance starts with recognising that every user has different expectations of their browser. While context can make online experiences more useful and personalised, people should be able to understand how their data is used and decide what they are comfortable sharing. By giving users meaningful control over the features they adopt, Firefox can deliver modern experiences while continuing to protect their privacy.

This has guided our phased approach to AI, beginning with practical features such as summarisation, translation, tab organisation and optional AI chat integrations. Before introducing more advanced AI experiences such as Smart Window, we launched AI Controls so people can manage individual features or switch them off altogether.

Firefox is also model-agnostic, so users can choose or switch providers, use local models, or opt out entirely. Even though only a small minority of users disable AI features, people regularly tell us they value knowing the controls are there. Privacy and convenience can coexist when people are able to set the terms of the experience.

• There's growing concern that the future of the web could become fragmented between closed AI ecosystems, proprietary platforms and app-based experiences. What do you see as the biggest threats to the open web, and what gives you confidence that it can continue to thrive?

The biggest risk isn't AI itself, it's concentration. If the same companies control the AI models, the interface people use to access them and the browser they interact through, users lose visibility, choice and ultimately agency. That's a much bigger shift than simply moving from one technology generation to another.

What's encouraging is that the issue is becoming harder to ignore. Developers want open standards. Regulators are paying closer attention to competition. Users are asking tougher questions about transparency and control. The web has always evolved through periods of disruption, but it has remained resilient because it's built on interoperability rather than permission. AI can strengthen that model rather than replacing it with a handful of closed ecosystems. The future doesn't have to be a choice between innovation and openness. We should expect both.

• Developers have always been central to Mozilla's community. As AI transforms software development and web creation, how do you think the relationship between developers, browsers and the open web will change over the coming years?

AI is making it dramatically easier to build software, which means we're going to see more developers – and more people who aren't traditional developers – creating for the web. That's a huge opportunity, but only if they can build on an open platform rather than for a handful of closed ecosystems.

That's why the browser becomes even more important. It's no longer just where websites are displayed – it's becoming the layer where people interact with AI to search, create, organise information and complete tasks. As that layer becomes more powerful, it has to remain open, interoperable and centred around user choice.

For developers, that means being able to build for the web, rather than for whichever company happens to control the dominant model or platform. That's always been one of the web's greatest strengths, and it's something we shouldn't lose as AI reshapes how software is built and experienced.

• If you look ahead to the end of this decade, what do you hope people will say about the state of the web? What would success look like for Mozilla's vision of an open, healthy internet?

Success, for me, is a web that's become more useful through AI without becoming less open. Technology should expand what's possible, not narrow the ways people can access information, build new ideas or participate online.

Innovation should continue to come from everywhere, not just a handful of dominant platforms. The web has always been at its best when anyone with a good idea can build something that reaches millions of people. That only happens when developers have open standards to build on and users aren't locked into a single ecosystem.

The web should still be the best place to build, discover and innovate because it remains accessible to everyone. If AI has expanded participation rather than concentrated power, we'll be heading in the right direction.

• Mozilla is competing in a browser market dominated by much larger technology companies. How do you differentiate Firefox, and why do you believe there's still a commercial and societal case for an independent browser?

We differentiate through independence, choice and accountability. Most browsers are tied to larger technology ecosystems spanning across multiple systems, search, advertising and AI.

Instead, Firefox is powered by Gecko, the only remaining independent browser engine, which gives us the freedom to make product decisions around what benefits users. It ensures that Mozilla is not only advocating for these principles but actively building the underlying infrastructure that makes them possible.

That independence is commercially relevant because there’s such a clear demand for genuine choice. Firefox has been selected through EU browser choice screens more than six million times in two years and those users are five times more likely to remain with Firefox than people who find it organically.

Societally, independent engines prevent one company’s technical and commercial priorities from being the default for the entire web. They also preserve competition, interoperability and the ability to build around different values.

• As regulators around the world seek to promote competition in digital markets, are we at a turning point for the open web, or is there still a risk that power becomes even more concentrated through AI?

There are certainly some encouraging signs that regulation can restore meaningful choice. The impact of browser choice screens in Europe shows that people choose alternatives when they are presented fairly and without being steered towards a default.

However, AI is creating a new concentration risk. If the same small group of companies control the operating system, browser, search engine and AI model, it becomes much easier for them to shape how people access information and which services they encounter.

Regulation needs to keep pace not only with how AI is developed, but with how it's distributed and embedded into everyday products. However, regulation can't do this alone. Interoperability, genuine defaults and strong technical competition will matter just as much.

• Trust has become a key differentiator in technology. How can browser makers earn and maintain users' trust as AI assistants become embedded in everyday web browsing?

Trust starts with being clear about what the technology is doing. AI should be optional, transparent and designed so users can understand what information it can access, how it’s being used and who is acting on their behalf.

That’s the principle behind Firefox’s AI controls. AI features are optional and can be managed individually, while a single setting allows users to block current and future generative AI features. We also use on-device models for features such as Link Previews and Smart Tab Groups, allowing people to receive AI assistance without any data leaving their device.

Ultimately, trust isn't earned through a single feature. It's earned by being transparent about how AI works and consistently respecting the decisions people make.