Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. Im Mark Sullivan, a senior writer at Fast Company, covering emerging tech, AI, and tech policy.
This week, Im focusing on the implications of OpenAIs official entry into the browser game with its ChatGPT Atlas. I also talk to Stanford HAIs James Landay about the AI industrys UX design challenges, and examine AI czar David Sackss recent X skirmish with Democratic billionaire Reid Hoffman.
Sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here. And if you have comments on this issue and/or ideas for future ones, drop me a line at sullivan@fastcompany.com, and follow me on X (formerly Twitter) @thesullivan.
With OpenAIs ChatGPT Atlas, the AI browser war officially kicks off
Using the internet with the help of an AI is a real thingand it became even more real Tuesday when OpenAI, the generative AI industrys de facto avatar, announced the release of its new ChatGPT Atlas browser. A new race has begun to reinvent the Chrome-style browser experience weve used for so long: The race to reinvent the browser around natural language AI.
Think of Atlas as an extended workspace and set of features around ChatGPT, specialized for fetching, parsing, and organizing web content. For months, Ive been using the ChatGPT desktop app. I simply hit a keyboard shortcut, a small chat window appears toward the bottom of my screen, and I ask my question. When I click a source link within the answer, a new Chrome tab opens up behind the chat window. When talking to ChatGPT within Atlas, theres no need to open that new Chrome tabeverything opens within Atlas. The chatbot stays open on the right, so I can ask it questions about the web page Im viewing.
OpenAI has some other ambitious ideas about how artificial intelligence can be used in browsing. Importantly, Atlas can leverage its memory of the users past browsing behavior so that it can more thoughtfully suggest ways of finding and organizing new data or web content. For example, it might remind the user of a specific piece of data they searched for within the same subject area at some point in the past. The user can control how much the browser remembers, OpenAI says.
Atlas goes beyond fetching web content. It offers to act as the users agent, interacting with websites on the users behalf. This could mean planning a theater date (complete with dinner reservations, for example) or buying concert tickets when they become available. This kind of autonomous agent is something of a holy grail, both for AI labs trying to build enterprise (work) AI and companies building consumer AI. Ive heard numerous tech company executives talk as if agents are already advanced enough to make a big difference in business and personal life.
Other execs and experts Ive spoken with say that the agent revolution will not happen this year, and maybe not even next year. Thats because the AI models behind the agents still arent good enough to reason through complex tasks. They also still cant process all the contextual information needed to safely complete high-stakes tasks involving real money (like all the small considerations involved in booking a plane ticket), influential AI researcher (and OpenAI cofounder) Andrej Karpathy points out in a recent podcast.
There are other hurdles, too. An entire technology ecosystem must form to accommodate new AI agents, says Devi Parikh, co-CEO of the agentic AI company Yutori. The websites and services of today are built for human users, so agents must learn how to click buttons, scroll pages, and search menus. They might work more reliably if they could exchange data with a website or service via an application programming interface (API) or some other secure and standardized handshake. Because its so crucial that users trust these AI agents, she says, AI companies would be wise to err on the conservative side in talking about what AI agents can really do; giving users a bad first impression could damage trust and make them hesitant to rely on agents.
While Atlas is getting lots of attention, Google has been (more quietly) upgrading its Chrome browser with AI. Just last month, the company added a spate of features that make its Gemini AI a bigger part of Chrome, saying that the browser is entering a new era powered by AI. Within Chrome, Gemini can summarize content, organize tabs, and ask questions about web pages. Googles new AI search function, now called AI Mode, shows up at the top of a wider range of searches and can also be called up using a keyboard shortcut.
But Google is building these features onto an existing browser-slash-search tool. Thats very different from building an AI-first browser from scratch as OpenAI did. Its also true that Google has introduced the AI features in such an understated way that many users probably dont even know theyre there. (I saw the shortcut to AI Mode in Chromes search bar for the very first time Tuesday.) And Google is also freighted with a decades-old business model that knows how to make money from the traditional 10 blue links search results. So it has to be very careful about how and when it pushes Chrome users toward AI search, which represents a very different revenue model.
At any rate, lots of AI talent and money will go into building a new way of using the internet in the coming months and years. Lets hope the end result is something that helps users more than exploits them.
Stanfords Landay: AI labs need to invest more in product design
Lots of people are using AI chatbots now, but the vast majority are free-tier users who employ the tools most basic features. They might be comfortable chatting with the AI about some personal matter, but less likely to use it to build a website. At work, they might be apt to look up a policy document, but less comfortable working with the tool to build a report or spreadsheet. The big challenge of designers within AI labs like OpenAI or Google is to build the user interface of AI tools in a way that invites people to use those deeper features, which can offer far greater rewards than the basic ones.
But designing software products with UX thats approachable and easy to use may not be the forte of AI labs, says James Landay, a Stanford computer science and engineering professor who co-directs the universitys Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). Landay, who specializes in human-computer interaction, consults for a number of tech companies in the Bay Area. A user interface could mean a piece of computer hardware or a software experience that mediates a humans interaction with an AI.
Landay says one of the big challenges of building interfaces for tech products has been that its very hard to anticipate the broad set of use cases that people may have, and the user interfaces people might prefer for each of them. Even on the Zoom call I had with Landay, several interface otions are availablehe may prefer audio-only on a phone, while I may prefer a half-screen mode on my laptop. As for AI apps, a small chat window might be fine for some use cases, while others might call for voice interaction. Still others may need a UX built for viewing images or video.
Landay says with AI, its unlikely that a dominant form of interface will emerge to muscle out other modes. People will likely want to interact with the technology in a variety of different wayssome old and some new. A slice of the consumer market may decide that the best way to use AI is within the lenses and earpieces of augmented reality glasses. Some may like the idea of an ambient AI in the home, always ready to offer intelligence at the sound of their name (HAL . . .).
Landay says the big AI labs havent yet moved very far away from the chatbot interface. He says these companies employ people who are primarily interested in natural language AI, so they naturally favor a text-based interface. The AI companies have so far focused most of their energy on improving the models themselves, and relatively little on developing productive ways for humans to interact with the AI. OpenAIs engagement with the design guru Jony Ive is a sign that the company is at least aware of the need to develop a practical human interface for AI, and willing to invest in possible solutions, Landay says. Ive has indeed invented captivating entry points to mobile computing technology (iPhones and Apple Watches), but AI is another paradigm, and one that might not lend itself easily to an ideal piece of hardware or software UX.
The David SacksReid Hoffman skirmish on X was mainly about Anthropic
David Sacks, the former VC who now works as the AI czar in the Trump administration, and Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn cofounder and big-time Democratic donor, got into a skirmish on X this week. It revealed some things about the politics of AI.
On October 20, Hoffman started a thread: I want to state plainly: In all industries, especially in AI, its important to back the good guys. Anthropic is one of the good guys. Further down, Hoffman points out that othersincluding Microsoft, Google, and OpenAIare trying to deploy AI in a way that balances innovation and safety, and is enormously beneficial for society. He adds that some AI labs (he doesnt name names) are making decisions that disregard societal considerations, including some whose bots sometimes go full fascist. (Elon Musks Grok chatbot reportedly has praised Hitler, dabbled in Holocaust denialism, and ranted about white genocide in South Africa.)Whether it was the part about Anthropic or the dig on fascist bots is unclearbut Sacks was triggered. He clapped back: The leading funder of lawfare and dirty tricks against President Trump wants you to know that Anthropic is one of the good guys.
Hoffman responded, charging that Sacks didnt read his full post, adding that its particularly rich that someone in the Trump administration would accuse someone else of lawfare and dirty tricks.
The MAGA-fied Sacks naturally has no love for Hoffman, a major Democratic donor. But he also sees Anthropic as a political enemy. His response: The real issue is not research but rather Anthropics agenda to backdoor Woke AI and other AI regulations through Blue states like California. Anthropic supported Californias Senate Bill 53 (aka the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act), which Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law. Sacks seems to suggest, without citing evidence, that Anthropic is working to get similar laws passed in other states.
Sacks also says that Anthropic opposed Trumps Big Beautiful [spending] Bill, the original version of which contained a 10-year moratorium on any new state-level AI regulationslanguage that was decisively voted out of the bill in the Senate before passage.
More AI coverage from Fast Company:
This is the worlds first vertical take-off AI-piloted fighter jet
Ukraine reveals powerful sea drone with AI capabilities in the Black Sea
Prince Harry, Meghan join open letter calling to ban the development of AI superintelligence
Anthropics relationship with the U.S. government is getting complicated
Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
Transparency comes up a lot with respect to the use of AI in journalism. There are obvious reasons for thisjournalism is all about bringing transparency to what happens in the world, after alland AI is a new thing that many people (rightly) view with skepticism. But that desire for transparency brings an opportunity to improve audience trust, something that’s in short supply lately.
In fact, a recent report on the use of AI in news media from the Reuters Institute showed a pretty clear pattern of audiences’ trust declining the more AI was used in the journalistic process. Only 12% of people were comfortable with fully AI-generated content, increasing to 21% for mostly AI, 43% for mostly human, and a respectable (but, notably, not amazing) 62% for fully human content.
The data points to a fairly obvious takeaway that, if trust is your goal (which in journalism, it certainly is), you should use less AI, not more. But we’re actually seeing precisely the opposite trend: Newsrooms worldwide are ramping up AI operations, with most major outlets, including The New York Times, using it in their process. Still others are using it to assist in creating content. ESPN, Fortune, and CoinDesk are just three examples of major, respected outlets leveraging AI to help write their articles.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}}
Flipping the skepticism of AI
What’s going on? Sure, there are industry pressures to incorporate AI, but the data suggests that you might sacrifice trust with your audience. That’s a difficult problem, but it can be mitigated by prioritizing transparency.
The data from the Reuters report creates a clear trend line, but it’s important to keep in mind the question was generic, asking about comfort levels regarding “AI- and human-led news,” and not about a specific use case. That’s why it’s important to provide a fuller understanding of what AI’s actually doingsay, sorting through hundreds of video transcripts to zero in on specific topics, or writing a first draft of “just the facts” that the reporter then scrutinizes and adds torather than just putting “AI-assisted” labels on things. That can mitigate the risk of losing trust somewhat, and this kind of transparency, done right, might even buttress it.
I thought about this when I recently built an AI project around my work. I host a podcast for The Media Copilot where I interview leaders in media, tech, and journalism every week. However, once I publish a podcast, it fades quickly. A new one comes along the following week, and although I capture specific insights in short clips and articles, those also don’t last long, and then that conversationwhich is likely still relevantis trapped in the past.
So I took every single podcast I’ve done and put them all in a single folder in Google NotebookLM. That tool applies AI to the folder’s contents so anyone can extract insights from it. If you have questions about the use of AI in media and journalism, just ask, and you’ll be able to hear what people like The Atlantic‘s Nicholas Thompson, Reuters’ Jane Barrett, and the AP’s Troy Thibodeaux think about it. And because it’s grounded in only the podcast transcripts (and not all the junk on the internet), the chance of the notebook making something up is very low.
The craft table of journalism
You can apply this idea to journalism more broadly. If you break down what a journalist does when creating a story, they typically gather things like research, interviews, specific documents, and the history of their reporting on a topic. In the process of writing, they curate the most important parts of that information, then apply their judgmentinformed by experience and their target audienceto craft a story.
You might call that last part the reporter’s lens. But it’s really just one lens among many that someone could look through at the material. A person with a different background, priorities, and knowledge of the subject might want to apply a different lens. You can think of this as a variation of the idea of “content remixing,” except that idea is usually concerned with format. This is remixing for audience.
A podcast about all the latest news in AI, for example, might focus on the most popular headlines for a general audience, the biggest market-moving events for investors, or the most noteworthy technical advancements for developers. They might even focus on the same stories, just with different details called out and expanded on.
Beyond the audience opportunity, though, is one of trust. Many news consumers distrust what they see in the media today. If you drill down on many of the complaints, which are often about political bias, the issue is rarely about the underlying facts and more about the lens the reporter has put them through.
This is where AI tools like NotebookLM can serve as a kind of window into how journalists curate their information. By allowing a glimpse into the raw materialthe interviews, the research, the unfiltered factsreaders might better understand how journalists arrive at their conclusions. It could demystify some of the process, making it less about just trust us and more about heres how we got here.
Of course, not every story could or should get this kind of treatment. Journalists are often entrusted with confidential material and sources that requie anonymity, so an open-door approach to the “raw material” of the story simply wouldn’t be possible. Redaction is an option, but that would likely sow even more doubt in the conspiracy-minded.
Making journalism interactive
But for some stories, AI could help create a new, more transparent kind of journalismone thats more interactive. Imagine if readers could use AI to navigate the same corpus of information and draw their own conclusions or even generate their own version of the story. Certainly, few readers will want to dive this deep, but for that curious minority, it could be a fascinating new layer. In a sense, it turns the journalist into a kind of information curator, where the reader gets to apply their own lens.
That feedback loop could have trust benefits for the journalist, too. By deconstructing the process this way, they might have a better understanding of their own lens: where they’re applying it, how it affects the story being told, and how other lenses change the picture. That perspective would inform how different audiences interpret their stories, which will hopefully lead to stronger stories.
In the end, we wont know if this approach is helpful for trust until we try it. Its an experiment in making journalism not just something you consume, but something you can interact with. And whether its an academic exercise or a new genre, its at least a step toward understanding how we shape the lenses that shape our news.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"salmon","redirectUrl":""}}
Seth Todd was wearing an inflatable frog costume while protesting outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Building in Portland, Oregon, when a federal officer unleashed a torrent of chemical spray directly into the costume’s air vent.Video of the incident on Oct. 2 has spread, and puffed-out costumes hippos in tutus, Mr. Potato Heads, dinosaurs have quickly become a feature of protests against President Donald Trump’s administration, including the massive “No Kings” marches across the U.S. last weekend.Todd, 24, said that while the attention has been overwhelming, he is nonetheless “honored to have inspired a movement like this.”“It’s helping to combat that specific narrative that we are violent and we are agitating,” he said.
Countering Trump, in costume
For protesters like Todd, the costumes are a way of fighting absurdity with absurdity: a playful counter to Trump’s portrayal of Portland as “war ravaged,” “burning down” and “like living in hell.”The Trump administration’s efforts to deploy the National Guard there for the stated purpose of protecting federal property are still blocked by the courts for now.Portland’s ICE building outside downtown has been the site of nightly protests that peaked in June when police declared one demonstration a riot. Smaller clashes have also occurred since then, and federal officers have fired tear gas to clear crowds, which at times have included counter-protesters and live-streamers.Nighttime protesters, frequently numbering just a couple dozen in the weeks before Trump called up the Guard, have used bullhorns to shout obscenities. They have also sought to block vehicles from entering and leaving the facility. Federal officials argue that they have impeded law enforcement operations.
‘Keep Portland Weird’
The inflatable costumes are a testament to the city’s quirky protest culture which also recently included a naked bike ride and its unofficial motto, “Keep Portland Weird.”“Portland has always prided itself on this spirit of protest,” said Marc Rodriguez, a Portland State University professor of history and expert in social justice movements.The costumes also play well on social media, showing the protesters as nonviolent, he added.
Frogs and more trend beyond Portland
Some groups have started giving out the costumes to encourage more demonstrators to wear them. In Austin, Texas, college student Natalie McCabe got a free inflatable bald eagle costume. At the recent No Kings rally, she hung out with a unicorn and a frog.“Seeing people happy and having a good time and doing something different, like a distraction, it’s just how it should be,” she said.At the No Kings march in Chicago, Kristen Vandawalker dressed up as an inflatable “pegacorn” part Pegasus, part unicorn and posed for photos with the city’s Trump tower in the background, as bubbles from a bubble machine floated by.“I think everybody just got the memo after Portland that this is something that we can do, and it’s something that the right doesn’t know what to make of,” said Vandawalker, the political action director for Indivisible Chicago Northwest. “Certainly, like the ICE agents don’t seem to know what to make of people in costumes. It’s hard to look threatening when there’s a fan blowing you up.”The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment on the inflatable costumes at protests.
Operation Inflation
In recent weeks, Portland residents have launched groups such as the Portland Frog Brigade, whose members sport inflatable frog costumes, and Operation Inflation, which hands out inflatable costumes to protesters for free.On Tuesday, Operation Inflation co-founders Brooks Brown and Jordy Lybeck dropped off about 10 costumes among them a mushroom, Frankenstein and panda outside Portland’s ICE building. They placed some on a costume rack and helped demonstrators put them on.The group has seen donations pour in and plans to expand to other U.S. cities, Brown said.“It feels really light-hearted and it feels that we’re showing these guys that we are not scared of them,” said protester Briana Nathanielsz, who opted for one of the Frankenstein costumes. “We’re going to keep having fun and keep Portland weird and safe.”
Claire Rush and Jonathan Mattise, Associated Press
David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance is seen as the top contender to buy Warner Bros Discovery, with analysts and experts saying the tech scion’s access to deep pockets and Washington ties give him an edge in what could be the media industry’s biggest merger in years.
Fresh off the Paramount-Skydance deal in August, the newly minted media mogul is eyeing one of Hollywood’s prized assets that is home to HBO, Warner Bros Studio and a streaming unit with more than 120 million subscribers.
His $60 billion approach was rejected by Warner Bros Discovery on Tuesday, Reuters first reported. But the company has put a for-sale sign and attracted other potential suitors including Comcast, Netflix and Apple, according to media reports.
POTENTIAL $74 BILLION VALUATION
At $30 a share the price Bank of America analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich estimates Warner Bros Discovery could fetch in a sale the company would be valued at about $74 billion, a figure analysts say could deter some bidders but remains within reach for Ellison, whose father Larry Ellison is the world’s second-richest person with a net worth of about $330 billion.
Apple had $36.3 billion in cash at June-end and could easily raise debt to fund a takeover but it has historically avoided large deals its biggest remains the $3 billion Beats purchase.
Netflix holds about $9.3 billion in cash and has never done a deal exceeding $1 billion, while Comcast’s $9.7 billion cash pile means any bid would likely rely heavily on debt or outside partners.
“It seems that Paramount appears to be in pole position,” said PP Foresight analyst Paolo Pescatore.
IN PARTS OR WHOLE?
Unlike Paramount, the other companies are also likely to be more interested in parts of Warner Bros Discovery than the whole company, which will saddle its buyer with around $35 billion in debt and declining cable TV assets, analysts said.
“The studio would make sense for Netflix and Apple. The TV networks would make sense for the Comcast spinoff, while the studio would make sense for what is left of NBCU,” eMarketer analyst Ross Benes said.
Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos on Tuesday reiterated the streamer is not interested in buying traditional TV networks but he did not mention studios.
“We’ve been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks, so there is no change there,” he said during an earnings call.
Apple has also shown little appetite for cable TV assets. Still, Warner Bros’ vast film and TV library, along with HBO’s acclaimed shows, would be a strong addition to Apple TV+.
Comcast, meanwhile, is narrowing its focus to theme parks, streaming and core NBCUniversal film and TV assets by spinning off most of its waning cable networks. Buying Warner Bros would deepen that strategy, giving Universal’s parks access to lucrative franchises such as “DC Comics” and “Harry Potter”.
TRUMP CARD
David Ellison also enjoys a unique advantage over rival bidders his father’s close ties with U.S. President Donald Trump. Larry Ellison has long been a Republican mega-donor and one of the few high-profile tech executives who were openly supportive of Trump before last November’s election.
Analysts say that could help ease regulatory concerns arising from Paramount’s potential buyout of Warner Bros Discovery – a deal that would hand control of a big swathe of U.S. cable networks as well as two crucial studios to Ellison.
“If anyone does buy the whole thing, or even split it into two and buy the two bits, it’s going to have to have the blessing of the current U.S. administration,” said Clea Bourne, Head of Subject of Strategic Communications and Journalism at the Goldsmiths, University of London.
“And that’s where the Ellisons stand out very easily, because their cart is very close to the administration.”
Zaheer Kachwala, Harshita Mary Varghese and Aditya Soni, Reuters
On Wednesday, October 22, Tesla released its third-quarter earnings with a side of begging from CEO Elon Musk.
The report and subsequent investors’ call was pretty standard. Tesla announced $28.1 billion in revenue, a 12% increase year-over-year (YOY) from $25.2 billion. A majority of Teslas revenue came, unsurprisingly, from automotive sales, which grew 6% YOY to $21.2 billion.
Quarter three was the last push for U.S. customers to buy Tesla vehicles before the federal EV tax credit expired.
However, it wasnt enough. Tesla failed to meet Wall Streets predicted $26.4 billion in total revenue, according to consensus estimates cited by CNBC. Its reported earnings per share also failed to make the mark, reaching 50 cents adjusted instead of the estimated 54 cents.
Teslas net income fell 37% YOY to $1.37 billion and its operating income dropped 40% to $1.6 billion. The company blamed the latter on greater operating expensesdue to AI and other R&D projectsalong with increased deliveries and each vehicle costing more overall, thanks to factors like higher tariffs.
Tesla shares (Nasdaq:TSLA) were down roughly 4% in premarket trading on Thursday. The stock price is up 15.74% year to date, slightly underperforming the Nasdaq Composite’s growth of 17.94%.
Musk wants more control as he focuses on robots
AI was one of the main topics of conversation in Teslas earnings call, while Musk also focused on robotaxis and his plan for Optimus humanoid robots.
The call ended with a plea from Musk and CFO Vaibhav Taneja. On November 6, investors will vote on a $1 trillion compensation package for Muskwhich would be contingent on the company hitting certain milestones.
Notably, the extra income would be in the form of Tesla shares, providing Musk with greater control over the company.
“[There] needs to be enough voting control to give a strong influence, but not so much that I can’t be fired if I go insane,” Musk said.
He then took aim at proxy firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, both of which are encouraging investors to vote against the new package.
I just don’t feel comfortable building a robot army here and then being ousted because of some recommendations from ISS and Glass Lewis, who have no freaking clue, Musk stated. I mean, those guys are corporate terrorists.
In the midst of a federal government shutdown, the U.S. government’s gross national debt surpassed $38 trillion Wednesday, a record number that highlights the accelerating accumulation of debt on America’s balance sheet.It’s also the fastest accumulation of a trillion dollars in debt outside of the COVID-19 pandemic the U.S. hit $37 trillion in gross national debt in August this year.The $38 trillion update is found in the latest Treasury Department report, which logs the nation’s daily finances.Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush’s Treasury Department, told The Associated Press that a growing debt load over time leads ultimately to higher inflation, eroding Americans’ purchasing power.The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impacts of rising government debt on Americans including higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages and cars, lower wages from businesses having less money available to invest, and more expensive goods and services.“I think a lot of people want to know that their kids and grandkids are going to be in good, decent shape in the future that they will be able to afford a house,” Smetters said. “That additional inflation compounds” and erodes consumers’ purchasing power, he said, making it less possible for future generations to achieve home ownership goals.The Trump administration says its policies are helping to slow government spending and will shrink the nation’s massive deficit. A new analysis by Treasury Department officials states that from April to September, the cumulative deficit totaled $468 billion. In a post on X Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that’s the lowest reading since 2019.“During his first eight months in office, President Trump has reduced the deficit by $350 billion compared to the same period in 2024 by cutting spending and boosting revenue,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement, adding that the administration would pursue robust economic growth, lower inflation, tariff revenue, lower borrowing costs and cuts to waste, fraud and abuse.The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the total national debt has grown by $69,713.82 per second for the past year.Michael Peterson, chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, said in a statement that “reaching $38 trillion in debt during a government shutdown is the latest troubling sign that lawmakers are not meeting their basic fiscal duties.”“Along with increasing debt, you get higher interest costs, which are now the fastest growing part of the budget,” Peterson added. “We spent $4 trillion on interest over the last decade, but will spend $14 trillion in the next ten years. Interest costs crowd out important public and private investments in our future, harming the economy for every American.”The U.S. hit $34 trillion in debt in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024.
Fatima Hussein, Associated Press
It looks like Im walking on Nerf darts.
Twenty-two foam nubs protrude from the bottom of this shoe. When I slide it on, it almost feels like Im walking on bubble tapeor like, with every step, an octopus tentacle is suctioning to my foot.
Even through a thick cotton sock and all that foam, I can feel textures underfoot. I sense the individual blades of grass on a soccer pitch, and dragging my sole along a textured running track feels a bit akin to licking the roof of my mouth.
Am I calmer? Perhaps. Im certainly more mindful. But I also wonder if Id notice this sensation in an hour.
This is Nike Mindthe companys first foray into apparel that puts your brain before your body, hacking your physiology to change your state of mind through applied neuroscience. Available January 2026 in two flavors (a slide called Mind 01 and a sneaker called Mind 02), the new line was designed to help amplify that dialogue between your brain and your feet, says Matthew Nurse, chief science officer at Nike.
[Photo: Nike]
But in fact, the possibilities behind Mind are much larger. For 45 years, Nike has been focused on tools to enhance physical performance. Now its considering how the things we wear can measurably change the way we feel.
[Image: Nike]
Using apparel to change how we think
Nurse calls the human body one big sensory antenna. Everything around us is stimuli that ultimately affects our brain, and designers are now taking a closer look at how we can apply the past 20 years of neuroscience (in a field often dubbed neuroaesthetics) to their work.
Nike is positioning Mind as a sensory intervention in an athletes pregame ritual, a way to calm down in the locker room before a big competition. What the designers have really done is create a sort of automated mindfulness that prompts you to get outside your own head and feel the world around you.
[Photo: Nike]
Theres a unique, specific utility for athletes, says Nurse. [But] if you just need some Zen on the way to work, if you just need something on the way home, we’re hoping this is going to work for you, too.
Seven years ago, the company began building its Mind Science team of neuroscientists that would have the specialization required to bring product to market.
First, the Nike team built a prototype: a sock with 40 pressure points pushing right into your foot. Why 40? The team felt that figure represented the ceiling of what your foot could perceive. It was a good proof of concept, but it wasnt really a shoe. So they kept iterating.
The effort that went into the nodes themselves is extraordinary. Nike used computer modeling to iterate and simulate different geometries that it then tested IRL with athletes and EEGs. The work sounds almost silly until you poke at one of these nodes with your finger and realize its not just a piston that runs up and down. It actually captures different angles, more like a video game controllers thumbstick. Thats what gives the sensation so much fidelity.
When Nike brought that Mind prototype to its manufacturers in Korea, they found their original design would take 41 steps (including gluing each node by hand) to turn into a shoetoo many steps for reasonable mass production. Over time, the team simplified the shoe to 22 nodes, and reconfigured the whole design so it could be produced in just two steps.
Seeing the Mind deconstructed reveals all of its industrial design efficiencies. The midsole looks like a chunk of foam honeycomb. Into it slip the nodes, which Nike figured out how to produce in just two molded pieces (it looks a lot like one of those reusable bubble tape fidgets that were so popular with the kids a few years ago).
The project also required Nike to reimagine the strobea thin fabric layer in the insole that helps make the shoe feel flexible. The problem, Nike found, was that it also absorbs the sensations of the ground (and one designer pointed out that this is even true for barefoot shoes like Vibram). So the team created a new, elastic version that wouldnt dampen sensation.
[Photo: Nike]
The shoes have now been tested on 2,000 athletes, doctors, nurses, and physical therapists for more than 100,000 hours on the job and in Nikes own research lab. In many cases, people were connected to EEGs to measure their brain patterns. Nike confirmed that the Mind boosts activity in the somatosensory cortex (which processes touch) and increases in alpha wave frequencies (the same signals in your brain that increase during meditation).
When I ask Nurse how much of a boost they see in alpha wavesand if the shoe reaches levels akin to meditationhe says it would still be too much to call the shoes meditation light. When I ask if the effects might wear off over time, as people are more habituated to the footwear, he agrees thats possible, but notes the shoes dont disappear from your senses like a pair of glasses on your face. Because those nodes have been designed to constantly fire as you shift, on and off.
What we hear from people is, if you’re standing a while, maybe you stop paying attention for a litle bit, but then [you move and] suddenly you’re aware, says Nurse. We also hear that even while people are sitting, they notice they’re just probing more. . . . You’re almost searching and exploring that feedback, because it’s new and novel.
[Photo: Nike]
The future of Nike Mind
Mind is a fascinating product. I found the slides, which I tried in an imperfect size, to be subtle enough that I almost didnt notice. But the full sneaker felt far more activating, and I would be tempted to try them without a sock. Whats certain is that these are early days for this field, and even Nurse admits that Nikes first Mind products are just a hint of whats possible.
Nurse calls Mind 01 and 02 chapter one of the feet. He notes that Nike has other chapters were interested in [beyond] the feet, with a most definite emphasis of whats possible across our skin. As for the experience of calm, its simply one sensation Nike designers are after, knowing that in different parts of your day, the goal is not always to be full Zen.
You can imagine where we’re headed, Nurse says. You start thinking about tapping into [all sorts of] sensory systems. . . . Youve got a whole body.
Even in the age of electric cars and AI generated everything, were still using the same three technologies to insulate most of our clothing. And they work mostly the same way.
Wool, down, and most recently, Primaloft (aka synthetic down) are all used to create lofta fluffy substance that traps pockets of air. Its that air thats ultimately creating a barrier between you and the outside cold to keep you warm.
But now, Nike is taking this premise to its ultimate conclusion, and launching its first coats that are insulated by nothing but air. And to tweak their warmth, you can even pump them up and deflate them as you like.
The technology will debut in the ThermaFIT Air Milano Jacket, which will be worn by medal winners standing on the podium at the Winter Olympics this February. Nike calls the jacket four jackets in one. Deflated, it’s supposed to feel like a windbreaker. Inflated, its somewhere close to a midweight puffer.
After trying on the jacket earlier this month at Nike HQ, Id say thats precisely rightand even more so, it feels luxuriously soft to the touch. But more on the wear test in a minute.
[Image: Nike]
Cracking the code of inflatable outwear
Nike has been designing inflatable jackets for nearly 20 years, since it first started putting air bladders in a coat for Nike ACG, its outdoor performance line. When the design team shared early experiments from its archives, I noted that all have that waterproof windbreaker lookand each uses different inflatable mechanisms, ranging from a blow straw, to a hand pump, to an iPhone and an app.
But Air Milano isnt a jacket that contains some Nike air bladders inside. Instead, the entire jacket is inflatable. How is that possible? Years of iteration. First, Nike sourced a fabric that feels somewhere between a cotton comforter and a swim shirt. It somehow feels naturally soft and synthetically stretchy at the same time.
[Photo: Nike]
Nike takes two pieces of this fabric, and then welds them together at the seams, while adding a pattern of dotted welds in between to create baffling (think of baffling as architecture that channels air). Whereas most insulated jackets have to be constructed to keep insulation in place, with latitudinal structures that give them a ribbed look, Air Milan is created from computationally designed patterns that ensure air flow through the garment.
Eighty percent of these patterns were tested in software simulations and never built. As I walk around a display of Nike’s early material tests, Im taken by the array of patterns Nike did attempt. Some baffling looks like the fine scaling of reptiles, while others look like marshmallow quilts. Some have sharp geometric diamonds, some burst radially in a way that almost feels floral.
Nike ultimately went with a baffling pattern inspired by the ACG logoas this jacket will be Nikes first attempt to bring the ACG brand info the greater public consciousness. Nike CEO Elliott Hill estimates that the outdoor segment represents a $130 billion market, and Nike would like to take a bigger chunk.
[Photo: Nike]
From prototype to finished product
Developing the jacket to functionally work was a long, difficult process. Early versions took up to seven minutes to inflate. Theyd stay inflated 30 minutes max. (The design team would actually inflate the jacket only moments before presenting its progress to executives, so that it would stay puffy for the full meeting.)
Now, the jacket comes with a small electronic pump that fits in your hand. You plug it into a port near your waste, and it inflates in about 15 seconds. Im told it will stay inflated, should you like, for weeks or even months.
[Photo: Nike]
The sensation of the jacket filling on your body is trippy. Your arms feel it first, as they Popeye outwards and begin to constrict your skin like a soft blood pressure cuff. Then you see your chest and stomach being filled as well. Once inflated, it took only a minute before I felt the heat. I started feeling a bit steamy, and I realized that the jacket doesnt breathe (yes, Nike has some ideas to fix thatlike adding small ports that, like Gortex, can keep heat in but allow moisture out).
It was just as wild to deflate it. All you have to do is pull another tab, and poooshhhhhhhhh, the jacket deflates back to where you started.
Nike built this jacket as a one-off product for the Winter Olympics, and it will not be coming to market in this form. But the jacket also demonstrates what Nike does best: It creates performance innovations that advertise themselves in an irresistible way. The jacket simply looks like it works differently than any jacket youve ever worn. And the Air Milano is really gorgeous to behold in person, as the baffling catches light and shadow, you can appreciate the technical efforts and high level of taste that went into the garment.
Jannett Nichol, VP, Apparel & Advanced Digital Creation Studio Innovation, confirmed that whenever Nikes inflatable technologycomes to the wider market, it wont be cheap. Instead, the company sees the future of the ACG brand as the pinnacle expression of Nike. And as a material, that inflatable Therma-FIT surface could make its way out of clothing into outdoor gear as well.
Wherever Therma-FIT goes next, Im glad to see Nike working on it. Few companies have the R&D resources and experimental know-how to really impact what the future of performance garments can be. And longer term, there is simply no way that down is a more sustainable option to insulation than pure air.
Besides, its just mind-bending to consider just how warm you can feel with a little fabric and a hand pump.
Elliott Hill spent his entire career at Nike. But he spent a full year as its CEO before giving his first media interview in the role. In mid-October, the company invited a select group of global journalists to Beaverton, Oregon, to see the latest in Nike innovations.
We tried a slew of ambitious products that will hit the market over the next year plus: mind-altering footwear, exoskeleton sneakers, and a jacket that inflates to keep you warm. And a few of us got to speak with Hill.
Hill is the third Nike CEO Ive interviewed for Fast Company. Hes not as introspective or soft-spoken as the design leader Mark Parker. Hes not as unapologetic or headstrong as the bean counter John Donahoe. Truth be told, after our brief chat, Im still wrapping my head around who he is. But something about his mannerquick speech, a lean-forward posture, and a penchant for hitting you in the knee to make a pointthat makes it hard to avoid the obvious sports metaphor.
As he discusses reshaping his team and fixing Nikes culture, Hill sounds a lot like Nikes head coach.
For a full tour of Nike, dont miss my deep dive on the 48 hours I spent on campus. Below are my most pressing questions since Hill took over the company last year.
And if theres any single takeaway, its that Hill doesnt like talking about structure (despite deeply restructuring the company to drive innovation again). Instead, he wants to talk about wholesalers, sport, culture, expanding the brand, and the greater possibilities lying ahead, as the company works under a new mantra developed by his new chief innovation, design, and product officer, Phil McCartney: Make epic shit. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
I think this is my fourth trip to Nike over the past 13 years. I would say, though, the energy feels really good on campus right nowwhether thats staged or not!
By the way, that’s not by accident, right? If I may respond to that, I know that wasn’t really a question, it was a statement. But one of the first things that I, and we as a leadership team, wanted to do was to win back the locker room. You had to get back to a strong sense of purpose and culture. Because ultimatelyand it’s not just Nike, I think it’s any businessI’m a firm believer that if you have the best strategy in place and the right structure and the processes but you don’t have the right culture, you’re not going to have the success that you expect, and certainly won’t meet your full potential.
So I’m glad that you at least see it and feel it. We’ve put a lot of time, energy, and effort into it.
Culture is a nebulous term.
It is.
It’s one of those words like love, which means a little bit too much, and it means something different to everyone you talk to.
No question, it does. We’re close to 80,000 employees, which is why I think its important to try to define the type of culture that we want and expect. And we’ve spent a lot of time doing that . . . through how we communicate, through all employee meetings, through written communication, and just how you show up day to day.
We have a book. I don’t know if you’ve seen our maxims; it’s what we believe in. There are five maxims. And then each of those maxims has three to four actions. What can I and we collectively do to help bring those maxims to life? And I know it sounds, again, pretty textbook, but if you live them and breathe them, it does start to come to life and help to define what you want the culture to be. And, more importantly, you start to see it come to life.
I am curious about structure. You completely restructured development teams when you returned to Nike. And they look like they did before [John] Donahoe, right? It seems like it’s a rewind to that structure, which was clearly proven at Nike for a long time. Is your plan fundamentally different than that?
Here’s what I would say: I’m a big believer in having clarity of purpose and strategy, and then that drives structure and processes. All of them have to work together to help deliver the type of results that we want to try to drive.
And so the first thing we wanted to do is get back to strategy. Why do we exist? And our sense of purpose is that We exist to serve the athlete. It’s about inspiration and innovation. For all 8 billion consumers in the world, if you have a body, you’re an athlete. And the whole idea is, if we can invite consumers, more and more athletes, into the world of sport, fitness, and lifestyle, we grow the overall marketplace. So that really anchors in sport.
Then we said, Okay, what [is] important? We’re a consumer products company. People buy stuff from us. So we have to have the most beautiful, innovative, and coveted product, first and foremost.
And then weve got to tell emotional, inspiring stories. And finally, weve got to pay it off in a marketplace where consumers shop. Not everybody shops Nikedirect.com or Nike digital commerce. And so that was the fourth action. We had lost how we connected with consumers down in cities that create influence. And again, whether it was cultural icons in those cities or sports icons, we lost some of that connectivity.
So those are the actions we put in place. And then you started to think, Oh, how do you do that across Mens, Womens, Kids [introduced by Donahoe], and its kind of hard to do! So we then decided, lets shift. Let’s take the $45 billion-plus of revenue, and let’s break it down by brand: Nike, Jordan, Converse. What are the sports that are most important? Let’s [have] small, cross-functional teams with a general manager who are empowered to run and move at the speed of the consumer.
This is what Im sayingthats classic Nike structure, no? You organized the company by sport rather than the Mens, Womens, Kids teams that Donahoe adopted.
Yeah thats classic Nike structure. But what is different is, the whole idea is it makes us more responsive with consumers and athletes, and more competitive.
Let me just say, when I reported the last feature, when Donahoe was here, the criticism I heard from people internally at Nike was We left the structure that works.
Its not about structure! Everybody keeps going back to it. What is it [really] about? It’s about sports. Its Nike running. Its Nike basketball. It’s Nike training. It’s Nike football, soccer.
Because the consumers who play those sports are very different. There are some who cross over, but the elite consumer who runs, or the everyday runner, could be very diferent than the elite footballer, soccer player, and/or the everyday soccer player. So they want and need different things from us, from a product perspective and a storytelling perspective.
And oh, by the way, the competition in both of those sports is very different as well. So being structured by sport gives you the sharpness and crispness on the athlete or consumer that we’re serving, but it also gives us a sharpness and crispness against the competitive set as well.
And you empower [these teams]. You let them run.
Okay, what has changed then?
First of all, what I have done is flatten my organization, so I have 15 direct reports now; 11 of them are new roles. I’m really excited about the talent that we have in the roles from the experience that they bring, the depth of knowledge in the industry, people from outside the industry who joined usthat helps round us out.
So Im excited about my leadership structure. The challenge that I’ve given that structure is two things: It’s pretty simple, individually and collectively. Individually, each one of us should be inspiring and aspirational. People should look up and be inspired by and aspire to be us, individually and collectively. That’s our challenge as a leadership team.
What then is differentand I’ll just jump into product: We have three brand presidents, and we have one leader over innovation, design, footwear, apparel, and accessory. The craft of making product that cuts across all three brands will enable us to leverage what I believe is one of our strongest core competencies, and that’s product management.
If we choose to add other brands, we can do that, so that then sets us up for the future. Once we get the machine running, generating the cash and the revenue that we all expect, it allows us then to leverage some of our core competencies for the future.
You just touched on something that’s been on my mind, which is this idea of Nike being such a big brand. Wall Street or analysts can criticize Nike’s growth, but it’s a gargantuan company. It is profitable, right? And it’s touching a lot of the world all the time. I guess my my curiosity is
and not all one percents of revenue are created equal! There’s a quote for you. Think about that. You know, no one really thinks about it: 1% of growth for us is $400 million to $500 million. Thats a company. We grow the size of a company annually!
Scaling a company your size is daunting. You bring up this possibility of introducing different brands. I wonder if there can be a sort of monolithic brand like Nike, or even two or three others like Jordan and Converse. I feel like you need even more sub brands to reach more people.
I think that might be a part of the conversation, and it’s our responsibility to set the structure up and our capabilities up, that if we choose to do that, we can do thatwe can use the balance sheet to go acquire brands if we choose to. Here’s what I would say: I still think there’s tremendous opportunity in the core of our business.
I didnt even mean acquire. I meant spin off.
Of course. Spin off and create. And we have some that we’re already starting to see, Nike ACG being one of them, going after the outdoor industry that I think is roughly $130 billion total addressable market, going at it through trail. Very unique Nike way and point of view.
Skims is another interesting opportunity. But even beyond that, we believe there’s tremendous growth still in the core. Because if you think about sport, it exists in every country, and we’re doing business in almost 190 countries. When we get down to countries, we’re not meeting our full potential.
In some of these countries, we haven’t been able to make the investments that we believe we need to make to inspire and attract the consumers in those countries as a truly global company. I could go through the list: Southeast Asia is a tremendous opportunity for us. Pick a country there, whether Malaysia, Indoyou pick it. We have tremendous opportunity to still grow there, when we run our offense, and we’re still in the process of getting our offense in place. Not only from a product creation perspective, but out into the marketplace, where we truly connect with consumers.
And the last thing I’d say, the sports industry is growing 3% to 5% a year. It’s about growing the overall marketplace versus getting worried about market share. And when we grow the marketplace, I like our chances of growing. Its a pretty intellectual sort of conversation, but I’ve seen it work, and I believe in it.
When Trumps tariffs were announced, I remember being like, Does Nike have to pull a lot of manufacturing out of Vietnam? Obviously, we learned in the last quarter how much tariffs are cutting into profit.
Its significant. $1.5 billion.
How are you responding to that right now? And how much is that affecting your strategy? Is it worth shifting manufacturing internationally? Can you even get ahead of tariffs, given the changing rules week to week, given that a lot of other countries are being affected with really high tariffs, too?
[Its] clearly making an impact. We talked about how we’ll offset it. The good news is we do have a sourcing base that we’ve built up over 50 years. Its global, and it’s expansive, and we’re pulling each of the levers to try to offset the tariffs at a super high level, working with our manufacturing partners to share in some of those costs, our retail partners. And then ultimately we have to, as a company, share in some of that. Were looking for efficiencies here, inside of our business and our own P and L to help offset that. So that’s what we’re doing, short term.
Longer termyou know, we can build factories anywhere. Setting up a factory and building lines, we know how to do. The challenge is, in our industry, we have tens of thousands of materials.
Yeah, exactly that. It’s the supply chain.
Its the material sourcing that is the bottleneck. And so that is what we’re working on right now. The simple idea there, conceptually, is to go: Well, just make fewer materials. But then you change choice, and you put designers and innovators and creatives in a box. That’s what we’re working through right now. Were trying to figure out, Okay, can we, should we, and where should our manufacturing base be for the future? And it’s definitely something that’s top of mind.
Near term, I’m just telling our team, let a few of us deal with that, and you control what you can control. And that gets back to making beautiful products and telling stories and making sure our brand looks the way it should look at retail. Because that’s how we drive sell-through. So control what you control. Let a few of us deal with the tacticaland it is some tacticalmoves that we have to make around tariffs while also thinking strategically about what does the supply chain of the future look like?
I haven’t checked out your new Project Amplify powered footwear yet, but I’m anxious to. I’ve used a couple of exoskeletons. I’m really bullish on these assistive technologies. And I’m curious: How key is that more electronic, or mechanical, innovation to Nike’s innovation pipeline of the future? Is it a really big growth category for you?
We’ve yet to put a number on it in terms of growth. We’re still working through what webelieve it can be. We do think it’s, without question, a big part of positioning our brand as an innovative thought leader thats willing to think outside the box. I think the biggest [idea] we keep using as an example . . . If you look at the sales of mountain bikes versus e-bikesif you look at the growth curvemountain bike growth has slowed. And then e-bikes are [growing] because people want to go further faster. We think theres an insight there. How big [Nike exoskeletons] will become, I think the consumer is ultimately going to decide.
I don’t know how Henri Cartier-Bresson would have reacted to Leica replacing the optical viewfinder on his camera with an artificial display. Perhaps the French photographer and cofounder of Magnum Photos wouldn’t have cared one bit about it. Or maybe hea profound humanistwould have disliked the idea of it almost as much as I do.
Cartier-Bresson once famously said that his Leica became the extension of [his] eye, prowling the streets all day, feeling very strung up and ready to pounce, determined to trap lifeto preserve life in the act of living. Thats a little harder to accomplish with Leicas new camera. Today, Leica is launching the M EV1. Its the first M camera with a digital viewfinder, meaning the Ms most distinct assetits beautiful optical viewfinderis no more.
Henri Cartier-Bresson during the 1968 Paris riots.[Photo: Alain Nogues/Sygma/Sygma/Getty Images]
What is the new Leica M EV1?
Before we get to the new camera, it’s important to understand what came before. For the last seven decades, the soul of the Leica M has been its optical rangefinder viewfinder. For those not obsessed with cameras, this is a beautiful, entirely mechanical system of mirrors and prisms. When you look through it, you see the world directly, as if through a window, but with a ghostly double image in the center. To focus, you turn a ring on the lens, and this second image moves. When it perfectly overlaps with the main image, your subject is in focus. It’s a method that is precise, completely free of electronic lag, and creates a unique, unfiltered connection to the world.
This system, first pioneered by Leica, made the M camera the tool that defined 20th-century photojournalism. Its compact, quiet, and discreet nature allowed photographers like Robert Capa to get closer to their subjects than ever before, capturing history as it unfolded without intrusion. The M was more than a camera; it was a philosophy of seeing, demanding a manual, deliberate approach that became synonymous with the craft of photography itself.
At first glance, the M EV1 is undeniably an M. It has the same satisfying density, the same minimalist silhouette carved from magnesium and aluminum. But then you notice the changes. The front is cleaner, almost sterile, without its iconic rangefinder windows. The top plate is also different; the traditional ISO dial is gone, sacrificed to make room for the new electronic viewfinder’s housing. The camera is also noticeably lighter46 grams less than its rangefinder cousins, a direct result of removing the complex optical and mechanical guts of the rangefinder system.
Inside, the M EV1 is built on the same foundation as the stellar M11 series. It uses the same 60-megapixel full-frame BSI CMOS sensor, a chip renowned for its incredible detail, 15 stops of dynamic range, and superb performance in low light. That sensor is paired with the company’s Maestro III processor. The company says that this combination makes the camera extremely responsive and quick. The camera also includes 64GB of internal memory, a practical feature for anyone who has ever filled a memory card at a critical moment.
And then theres the entire raison dtre for this camera: the electronic viewfinder (EVF). It’s a high-resolution, 5.76-million-dot screen, which, according to Leicas claims, offers a “what you see is what you get” experience. It is, like I said, a fundamental departure from the rangefinder’s optical approximation.
[Photo: Leica]
The Eye of Sauron
For the first time in an M, the photographer doesnt see real reality. It doesnt see kids crying, running from a napalm strike in Vietnam. It doesnt see Muhammad Alis fist. It doesnt see a sailor kissing a nurse in New Yorks Time Square. Or any of the photos taken with rangefinders that have arguably defined the 20th century. Út, Hoepker, or Eisenstaedt wouldnt have seen those scenes through their own eyes but through the filter of a display that, rather than reality itself, shows a direct feed from the sensor, showing exactly how the final image will look in terms of exposure, depth of field, and color. Not the world, but the final photograph.
While showing me the new camera, Nathan Kellum-Pathe, Trade Marketing Product Communications manager at Leica USA, admitted that taking this step was a significant topic of discussion within the company. A decision that was ultimately justified by looking at the brand’s history and its current strategic goals. Read that as sell more cameras to a new public who want an easier-to-use experience.
He also noted that there was historical precedent, as not every M had a rangefinder inside of it. He believes it is a good time to do it, pointing at the 70th anniversary of the M system as the right moment to show the market that Leica is open to changing what the M is defined by.
This will likely rankle purists like myself (Im writing this under embargo, so there are no public reactions at this time). Kellum-Pathe insisted that the Leica M EV1 doesnt mean they were going to kill the traditional M. We’ve had 70 years of the M with the rangefinder, he says. “We will continue to have the M with the rangefinder.
[Photo: Leica]
[Image: Leica]
[Photo: Leica]
Kellum-Pathe points out that a digital viewfinder has practical advantages. It makes using wide-angle or telephoto lenses much easier, as the EVF shows the lens’s true field of view, unlike a traditional rangefinder, which is limited in its perspective. It also makes focusing with fast, shallow-depth-of-field lenses like Leica’s own Noctilux much simpler, thanks to digital tools like focus peaking (which highlights sharp areas in color) and magnification.
Even the frame-line selector lever on the front of the camera has been repurposed into a customizable function button to toggle these aids without taking your eye from the viewfinder. And heck, for photographers who wear glasses, a built-in diopter adjustment wheel is a nice convenience compared to the screw-on lenses required for optical viewfinders.
Its all really cool. But it is an artificial pixel wall between a photographers retina and the real world. A screen is a layer of interpretation of reality, no matter how technologically good it can be. It is not a keyhole to the real world, as the optical rangefinder is. The direct human connection to the moment gets lost. In the middle of this AI clusterfrak, the last thing I need is for yet another analog instrument to become digital. But I get it. According to Kellum-Pathe, this move is a direct response to customer demand.
The market has asked for it for quite some time, he told me, explaining that many love the idea of the compact M body and its legendary lenses but are intimidated by the steep learning curve of the manual rangefinder system. The M EV1 is designed to be a bridge. It creates a new, third pillar in the M lineup, sitting alongside the analog and digital rangefinder models, offering an easier entry point into the Leica ecosystem, he argues.
Next Gen Leica
Priced at $8,995, the camera is also about $850 less than its rangefinder sibling, a price difference Kellum-Pathe is the result of eliminating the very object that forever defined the M: The complexity of the hand-assembled optical mechanics versus a digital panel. Much like cars getting rid of analog controls in the name of a money savings and alleged consumer demand, Leica is betting that this new model will attract a new generation of users without taking away from the purists who will always have the traditional M waiting for them. “For those who prefer the rangefinder experience, thats never going to go away,” he insists. Well, good. I sure hope so.
And yes, of course the M EV1 will be a better camera for most people in most situations. The EVF is technically superior, more accurate, and more versatile than the 70-year-old optical rangefinder system it replaces. It makes the famously demanding process of shooting with an M camera significantly more accessible. It will probably sell like crazy (or as crazy as a $9K gadget can sell).
The analog Leica M6 [Photo: Leica]
But again, I just can’t shake the feeling that it misses the very essence of what makes the M the M. A magic that was never about technical perfection. It was about the direct, visceral connection between the photographer’s eye and the world, viewed through a bright, clear pane of glass.
The rangefinder, with all its quirks and limitations, forces a different kind of seeing. Its an active, mental process of aligning frames and focusing patches, a collaboration between mind and machine. Its a peephole, not a television screen. Looking through the M EV1’s brilliant little display, as sharp and clear as it is, will always feel like watching a broadcast of reality rather than witnessing it. The digital aids, while useful, add another layer of interpretation, of noise, of things to distract you.
I think of Robert Capa on the beaches of Normandy and his vision narrowed to a small, glowing rectangle in a digital viewfinder with the chaos raging around him. And I keep coming to the idea that, while the new Leica M EV 1 is probably a perfect digital camera, while it may look and click like a regular Leica M, it will never have, by definition, the same take a look through the magic hole and let’s see what comes at the end of this je ne sais quoi. And for sure, it will never be the extension of Cartier-Bresson or anyone else’s eye.
