I work from home, so I typically listen to audio through headphones or AirPods. But I’ve always wanted a desk speaker that doesn’t take up too much space, which made the new Sonos Play a fitting first Sonos product to review.

The Play, launched in March, is Sonos’s first new device in more than a year. The $299 speaker is a hybrid: part home speaker, part portable. It sits on your desk in a pill-shaped dock, but at 1.3 kilograms, with a “utility loop” on the back, it’s easy to carry around the house or take outside.

While testing it, I often started a podcast at my desk and carried the Play to the kitchen while I cooked or made coffee. The advantage over wearing AirPods is that you remain aware of your surroundings — no more missing what someone across the room is saying. And you don’t need to rely on voice commands to control playback; the Sonos Assistant and Alexa are both built in.

Physical controls are another advantage. Skipping tracks or adjusting volume with greasy hands is awkward on AirPods; the Play’s buttons are more forgiving. That said, the controls themselves are easy to miss — they’re the same color as the silicone top and barely raised above the surface. After a few days I had memorized their positions, but the learning curve is a minor frustration that better contrast or more tactile buttons could have avoided.

The speaker is sturdy and IP67-rated, meaning it can handle rain and brief submersion — I ran it under a tap without issue. It can also charge your phone in a pinch, doubling as a power bank, which is a welcome feature for outdoor use.

For sound, the Play relies on dual-angled tweeters, a mid-woofer, and three digital amplifiers, with two passive radiators to reinforce bass outdoors. The result is balanced and detailed at moderate volumes — instrument separation is particularly good. The soundstage is narrow, though, meaning the music can feel somewhat contained rather than expansive, and at higher volumes the mix loses some of its clarity.

The Play is well-suited to a desk or a patio; it isn’t trying to fill a room. For that, Sonos’s Era 100 SL — which launched alongside the Play — is the better choice. Two Play units can be paired into a stereo configuration, either through the app or, more cleverly, by holding the play/pause button on both speakers simultaneously. It’s a useful feature that makes a noticeable difference for music, though less so for television audio — which these speakers aren’t really designed for anyway.

Sonos has also built in Trueplay, which uses the speaker’s microphones to automatically calibrate sound based on the room. Earlier versions of this feature required waving your phone around the space to tune the audio — an awkward workaround that would have made little sense on a portable speaker. The new implementation handles it automatically.

Sonos has had well-publicized struggles with its app — disappearing speakers, glitchy volume controls — and while the company has made meaningful improvements, a few rough edges remain. Sync between the Play and my MacBook was occasionally laggy, for example, and playing or pausing audio on YouTube sometimes produced a noticeable delay before the speaker responded.

Switching audio between speakers worked reliably through AirPlay but failed repeatedly in the Sonos app until I installed the Apple Music integration — and even then, the process is more cumbersome than it should be.

The “Apply” button in the Sonos app, required to confirm speaker changes, feels like an unnecessary extra step. AirPlay handles the same action with a single tap.

Pocket Casts integration has a resuming bug: podcasts restart from the beginning rather than picking up where you left off.

Overall, the Sonos Play is a solid speaker that largely delivers on its premise. The app issues are real but not dealbreakers, and Sonos has shown it is willing to iterate. If portability isn’t a priority, the Era 100 ($219) or Era 100 SL ($189) offer more volume for less money. If you want something more rugged and truly portable, the Sonos Roam 2 or JBL Charge 6 are worth considering. But if you want a speaker that works equally well on a desk and a back porch, the Play makes a convincing case for itself.

SpaceX went public this week in the largest IPO ever, making CEO Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire.

Despite its name, SpaceX has been emphasizing the potential of its costly AI business, and competitors OpenAI and Anthropic may soon follow with their own public market debuts. So on the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed what’s looking like a hot IPO summer.

“We have SpaceX not only sucking up just a huge chunk of the money that’s available on public markets, but also really stress testing the limits of what a public company can be and how much it can be controlled by one single person,” Sean said. “My eye is really on these other tech companies that will go public and how much they will try to emulate.”

Kirsten also noted that there are other startups trying to “ride that SpaceX IPO wave,” for example by raising money for orbital data centers after SpaceX helped to popularize the concept.

“So there’s a ripple effect that’s happening throughout the market that I think is probably even more interesting than just the headline, ‘SpaceX makes Elon a trillionaire,’” she said.

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Ha: I want to zoom out a little bit from just the SpaceX IPO, because beyond the Elon Musk of it all, it’s the beginning of what could be a [series] of different IPOs for different AI companies. We’ve talked about Anthropic confidentially filing to go public, and now OpenAI has done the same. How excited are either of you about this?

Kirsten Korosec: I want to start off by saying that I love Julie Bort’s story, which I think sums it up pretty nicely. It’s a great headline, so I’m gonna read it here: “It’s not FAANG anymore, it’s MANGOS.” FAANG being Facebook, which is now Meta; Amazon; Apple; Netflix; Google, now Alphabet. 

Now it’s shifted, and we’ve got Meta, Anthropic, NVIDIA, Google, OpenAI, SpaceX. [We’ve still got] massive tech companies, surely, but there is a shift here, right? First of all, we’ve got a bunch of AI labs in there, and that’s very different. Netflix gets booted out of there, a giant streaming service. And so to me, it’s an interesting shift in terms of public markets and the vast amount of money and capital available in the public markets shifting away from consumer [and] social networks and towards, specifically, AI labs and other, more innovative deeptech, such as SpaceX. 

So I think that’s the most interesting thing —  aside from the fact that this summer is going to keep us all very busy as reporters, more than probably any other summer in a while.

Sean O’Kane: You know, once upon a time I wanted to be a lawyer, and one of the reasons I didn’t was because I hated the paperwork that was going to be involved. And here I am looking forward to reading hundreds more pages of SEC filings this summer —  talk about a beach read.

It’s a moment we’ve been anticipating for a while. We’ve spent the last few years really wondering if the IPO market was going to quote-unquote “open back up” after a lot of consternation about private markets, and mockery about people reaching their like Series [whatever] fundraising round. This is a good stress test — I mean, “good,” take that word however you want — a good stress test of public markets in general. 

We have SpaceX not only sucking up just a huge chunk of the money that’s available on public markets, but also really stress testing the limits of what a public company can be and how much it can be controlled by one single person. My eye is really on these other tech companies that will go public and how much they will try to emulate.

A thing that I keep saying and thinking about with SpaceX is, they’re really trying to take some of the most extreme aspects of Google and Meta’s original IPOs back in the early 2000s and mashing it up with that “We’ll lose money forever” with Amazon. And I’m curious how much Anthropic and OpenAI will try to do the same. Will they remake themselves in the image of SpaceX? Or will they try to put themselves in a different light?

Anthony: One aspect that really got driven home as I was reading about the OpenAI IPO is also the extent to which some of this is also a bit of a race in terms of timing. I think we can confidently say at this point, SpaceX is first out the gate, which probably has some advantages and disadvantages. It’s also a bit of a different company because it’s billing itself as an AI company, but obviously has a bunch of other stuff going on, too. 

But there is a sense in which, at least according to some analysts, OpenAI and Anthropic may both want to go before the other one, because there’s only a finite amount of capital, a finite amount of interest. At some point some of these valuations have to start coming back down to Earth, and so they may both be scrambling to be first. 

Kirsten: I mean, there’s very much a race between Anthropic and OpenAI. You’re even seeing OpenAI talk about slashing prices, and they’re certainly going to be competing on the IPO calendar. But that is very short-term thinking. If they’re smart, they should be much more concerned about the long-term play here. 

To me, what’s really interesting is while Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX all prepare for these moments, there are a host of other companies out there that are raising money on the backs of the success of companies like SpaceX, or going into SPACs. Just today, for instance, or as we’re recording this, a company called Quantum Space is doing a SPAC and absolutely trying to ride that SpaceX IPO wave. 

We’ve got a host of other startups that our reporter Tim Ferholz has reported on that are clearly — they’re not going to go public, right? But if SpaceX is successful with space data centers, they’re raising money off of that potential and they’re building businesses on that potential. So there’s a ripple effect that’s happening throughout the market that I think is probably even more interesting than just the headline, “SpaceX makes Elon a trillionaire.”

Sean: The commonly accepted theory in Silicon Valley is that AI is remaking the economy, but because of its use. AI is actually already remaking the economy — just because of how people are trying to build it. We have everything that you just described, we have these other companies rushing to public markets. And I think that’s a really good point to think about: Will they ever regret rushing to public markets?

But we even have companies like Ford and General Motors who are pivoting their unused battery creation capacity to be energy providers for data centers. And Ford’s stock shot up when it announced what is honestly a pretty modest-looking energy storage business, in comparison to something like Tesla. And Tim De Chant had a really great series of stories this week about GM’s pivot, as well.

The economy’s already being remade. Whether that’s durable, again, that’s the question, but it’s happening right now.

Kirsten: That is actually a really good point, because to me, I want to say five, six, seven, eight years ago, there were all these headlines of “the next Tesla killer” and these automakers and other companies are still chasing trying to recreate all these various businesses, and specifically the strategies of Elon Musk-based businesses. They haven’t learned their lesson.

I wish I could communicate this to all the automaker CEOs out there: I get it that you have a lot of unused batteries and you want to pivot to something else, but trying to model your business after Tesla or SpaceX and others, it doesn’t always work. Perhaps look elsewhere.

Sean: So Ford shouldn’t get into space data centers. Is what you’re saying?

Kirsten: No, they shouldn’t. But just watch. This is going to happen.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is about to announce a ban on social media usage for children under the age of 16, according to multiple reports.

While the government had previously revealed that it was studying options around a ban, both the Guardian and the Financial Times said that Starmer is now ready to unveil the policy in a speech on Monday.

Government sources told the Guardian that the U.K. ban will cover a similar range of social platforms as Australia, where TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, X, Threads, Snapchat, Twitch, and Kick are all banned for users under 16.

Other products, such as gaming apps, would not be banned outright, but for their younger users, they’d need to remove features like the ability to chat with strangers. The policy would also prohibit users under 18 from accessing romantic and sexual chatbots and seek to prevent late-night scrolling.

The government can use its existing regulatory powers to enforce some aspects of a ban, but new legislation may also be required, the Guardian said.

The U.K. is one of a number of countries following Australia’s lead by considering bans on social media use by children. The U.K. already passed an age verification law that was similarly touted as protecting the safety of children online.

These bans come amidst growing discussion around the effect of social media usage on teens and children — for example, the mother of murdered teen Brianna Ghey has called for a teen social media ban in the U.K. and said her daughter’s eating order and self-harming behavior were “significantly exacerbated by the harmful content she was consuming online.”

At the same time, these bans have been criticized for potentially violating user privacy and isolating children, while offering unproven benefits to their mental health.

Age verification laws — which, unlike outright bans, have taken effect in multiple U.S. states — have also been criticized as threats to online privacy and anonymity. And the verification methods aren’t exactly foolproof.