Tech
Samsung shows off new display tech that adds a privacy screen to apps and notifications
At Samsung’s Galaxy S26 live event on Wednesday, the company introduced a new display technology that allows users to turn on a privacy mode and prevent so-called “shoulder surfing” on a per-app basis. The display tech will offer a smarter and more flexible alternative to privacy films, which are overlaid on top of a smartphone’s screen to limit viewing unless you’re looking directly at the phone.
As Samsung pointed out, these traditional privacy films come with trade-offs — like dimmer screens or more difficulties when you’re trying to show someone else something on your phone.

Its solution is a new display technology for mobile devices that uses two different types of pixels: narrow pixels and wide pixels. This architecture, which Samsung dubbed Black Matrix, will narrow the path of light emitted from each pixel to precisely control the light visible to you when the privacy mode is enabled. When it’s turned off, a widened standard pixel works with the narrow pixels to deliver the light in every direction.

The Privacy Display feature is also customizable, so you can set certain apps or notifications to trigger privacy mode, while others are viewed normally. For instance, you could set your messaging app or banking app to always be displayed in a private mode, but leave it off for other apps where privacy is less of a concern. This flexibility also extends to notifications, essentially blacking out certain alerts when viewed from a side angle.
Samsung says there’s also a setting for “maximum privacy protection,” which intensifies the privacy effect further by bringing down the bright areas and lifting the darker ones.

The new display will initially be available on the high-end Galaxy S26 Ultra smartphone, which also includes support for upgraded and faster AI and a custom chipset.
The privacy screen was demoed live on stage during the event Wednesday, with creator Miles Franklin (of MilesAboveTech) showing the technology in action. In the demo, the feature appeared to work as advertised, including for smaller elements on the screen like specific notifications.
Techcrunch event
Boston, MA
|
June 9, 2026
The company had teased the technology ahead of Wednesday’s event, but hadn’t yet explained how it would work. It noted that the feature would work with specific apps, protecting users when they enter PINs, patterns, or passcodes.
Tech
OpenAI’s existential questions
OpenAI has been all over the news recently, whether that news is about acquisitions, competition with Anthropic, or bigger debates about AI’s impact on society.
On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I did our best to round up all the latest OpenAI news. While the company’s latest acquisitions seem to be classic acqui-hires, Sean suggested they also address “two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.”
First, with the team behind personal finance startup Hiro, the company may be hoping to come up with a product that has “more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.” And with new media startup TBPN, OpenAI could be looking to “better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great.”
Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity below.
Anthony: [We have] two deals that are worth mentioning, one is that OpenAI acquired this personal finance startup called Hiro. And that comes after another deal that was literally announced when we were recording our last episode of Equity, so we didn’t get to talk about it: OpenAI had also acquired TBPN — a business talk show, like a new media company.
And I think both of these deals are pretty small compared to the scale of OpenAI. These are not things that people expect to really change the course of their business or anything like that, but they’re interesting because it suggests that there’s still this [attitude of,] “Let’s try out different things.”
Especially [with] the TBPN deal […] particularly at this time when it feels like OpenAI, from all the reporting we’re reading, is also trying to really refocus on making ChatGPT and its GPT models really competitive in an enterprise context with programmers.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
Is running a tech talk show, should that really be on the to-do list?
Kirsten: No, this should not be on the to-do list. That’s it.
I do want to mention Hiro because to me, that’s an interesting one, because Julie Bort, our venture editor, super talented, she wrote about this and was I think the first to write about it. She dug in a little bit and basically this looks like an acqui-hire. The company is folding. They basically said, “By this date, you won’t be able to access this anymore.”
This is a personal finance startup. And they only launched two years ago. So this absolutely is about getting talent on board. So I’m very curious to see if OpenAI is going to be just absorbing them into the ether at OpenAI, or if they’re actually interested in some sort of personal finance product that they want to work on. To me, it’s not really clear.
Sean: I think you look at both of these as acqui-hires to a certain extent. I mean, the TBPN acquisition, allegedly they are going to retain their editorial independence on the show that they make every day. And all respect to those guys who’ve put that out there and gotten it off the ground so quickly and grown it into what it has become.
I think any person who follows the media should have a healthy dose of skepticism that when you acquire something like that and you put the people who make the show under the org of the public policy people and comms or marketing adjacent people higher up at the company making the acquisition, that you could have good questions about whether or not saying “editorial independence” is enough. It’s not an incantation that just works.
But you know, what’s interesting to me about these two, while they are similar in their acqui-hire-ness, I think they both represent two major problems that OpenAI is facing.
One is Hiro. OpenAI has a very successful product in ChatGPT. As far as whether or not that will actually ever make them enough money to become a sustainable business that’s not raising the largest private rounds in the world, ever, to keep things going, is a big question. And they also seem to be struggling to keep up on the enterprise side of things where the real money seems to be, so bringing in a team like this seems like taking a shot at, “What else can we do?”
The guy who founded Hiro seems to have a serial entrepreneur streak of creating consumer apps, and so this seems to me like a bet on them being able to come up with something else that may have more hooks than just a chatbot, and maybe something worth paying more for.
And then TBPN is an acquisition made to help better represent what the company does and better shape its image in the public eye, which lately has not been great and certainly is under more questions now than just a few weeks ago, because Ronan Farrow just led a report at The New Yorker that dropped suspiciously right around the time that this and a couple other announcements from OpenAI came out last week.
I think those are two big existential problems that OpenAI is trying to solve right now.
Kirsten: So the thing that you didn’t say is, there’s Anthropic kind of looming in — not in the shadows, I mean, they’re very much taking up a lot of space here — but they’re having a lot of success on the enterprise side of things.
It feels like these guys are competitors and they also feel like very different companies in a lot of ways. Anthony, I’m wondering if you see them as direct competition to OpenAI? Or [are they] just finding their stride in enterprise and in a way, these two companies are clearly going to coexist and they’re really not directly competing with each other — maybe on talent, but not necessarily as we initially thought of them?
Anthony: I think they’re directly competing with each other. There’s definitely a scenario where if AI as an industry, as a technology, is as successful as its proponents hope for, they could both be very successful companies, they could just be the one and two. And the success of one does not necessarily mean that the other will just fade into obscurity.
And again, none of this is official, but there’s just been a lot of reporting around how it seems like OpenAI, more than anyone, is obsessed with and upset about Anthropic’s rise.
Our reporter Lucas [Ropek], he did a great piece over the weekend about the HumanX conference, where he was talking to everyone there and they’re sort of like, “Yeah, ChatGPT is fine, too,” but like they were all about Claude Code. And I think that is exactly what OpenAI is worried about.
Because again, in theory, there could be many other opportunities for generative AI, but it feels like the big growth area, the area where the most money is and where they could at least see a path to having a sustainable business in the future, is in these enterprise and coding tools.
Tech
Blue Origin successfully re-uses a New Glenn rocket for the first time ever
Blue Origin has successfully reused one of its New Glenn rockets for the first time ever, marking a major milestone for the heavy-launch system as Jeff Bezos’ space company looks to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
But the overall mission’s success may be in question. Roughly two hours after the launch, Blue Origin revealed that the communications satellite that New Glenn carried to space for AST SpaceMobile wound up in an “off-nominal orbit,” meaning something may have gone wrong with the rocket’s upper stage. In other words, it appears the company missed the mark.
“We have confirmed payload separation. AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on,” the company wrote on X. “We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.”
AST later said Blue Origin’s rocket placed its satellite into an orbit that was “lower than planned,” so the satellite will have to be de-orbited.
According to a timeline provided by Blue Origin prior to the launch, the upper stage of New Glenn should have performed a second burn roughly one hour after the rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. It’s unclear if that second burn ever happened, or if there were other problems with it, before the AST satellite was deployed.
The company accomplished the re-use feat Sunday on just the third-ever launch of New Glenn, and a little more than one year after the first flight of the new rocket system, which has been in development for more than a decade.
Making New Glenn reusable is crucial to its economics. SpaceX’s ability to re-fly Falcon 9 rocket boosters is one of the main reasons why it has come to dominate the global orbital launch market.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
While Blue Origin has already sent a commercial payload to space with New Glenn — Sunday was the second-such mission — the company wants to use the rocket for NASA moon missions, and to help both it and Amazon build space-based satellite networks. Blue Origin is currently finishing getting its first robotic moon lander ready for an attempted launch later this year.
The booster that Blue Origin re-flew on Sunday was the same one the company used in the second New Glenn mission in November. During that mission, the New Glenn booster helped put two robotic NASA spacecraft into space for a mission to Mars, before returning to a drone ship in the ocean. On Sunday, Blue Origin recovered the rocket booster a second time on a drone ship roughly 10 minutes after takeoff.
Any trouble deploying AST’s satellite could present a risk to Blue Origin’s near-term plans for New Glenn. Blue Origin has a deal with the communications company to send multiple satellites to orbit over the next few years as it works to build out its own space-based cellular broadband network.
This story has been updated with new information from Blue Origin and AST SpaceMobile.
Tech
Cracks are starting to form on fusion energy’s funding boom
It happens in every emerging industry: founders and investors push toward a common goal, until the money starts to roll in and that shared vision begins to diverge.
Cracks are emerging in the fusion power world, which I saw firsthand at The Economist’s Fusion Fest in London last week. It didn’t dampen the overall buoyant mood, lifted by fusion startups’ fundraising haul of $1.6 billion in the last 12 months. But people had differing opinions on two key questions: When should fusion startups go public? And are side businesses a distraction?
Going public was at the top of everyone’s minds. In the last four months, TAE Technologies and General Fusion have announced plans to merge with publicly traded companies. Both stand to receive hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their R&D efforts alive, and investors, some of whom have kept the faith for 20 years, finally see an opportunity to cash out.
Not everyone is in agreement. Most of those who I spoke to were worried these companies were going public far too early and that they hadn’t achieved key milestones that many view as vital in judging the progress of a fusion company.
First, a recap: TAE announced its merger with Trump Media & Technology Group in December. Though the deal isn’t yet completed, the fusion side of the business has already received $200 million of a potential $300 million in cash from the deal, giving it some runway to continue planning its power plant. (The remainder will reportedly land in its bank account once it files the S-4 form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)
General Fusion said in January that it would go public via a reverse merger with a special purpose acquisition company. The deal could net the company $335 million and value the combined entity at $1 billion.
Both companies could use the cash.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
Before the merger announcement, General Fusion was struggling to raise funds, and around this time last year it laid off 25% of its staff as CEO Greg Twinney posted a public letter pleading for investment. It received a brief reprieve in August when investors threw it a $22 million lifeline, but that sort of money doesn’t last long in the fusion world, where equipment, experiments, and employees don’t come cheap.
TAE’s position wasn’t quite as dire, but it still required some funds. Pre-merger, the company raised nearly $2 billion, which sounds like a lot, but keep in mind the company is nearly 30 years old. What’s more, its valuation pre-merger was $2 billion, according to PitchBook. Investors were breaking even at best.
Neither company has hit scientific breakeven, a key milestone that shows a reactor design has power plant potential. Many observers doubt they’ll hit that mark before other privately held startups do. One executive told me, if they were in those shoes, they’re not sure how they would fill time on quarterly earnings calls if the companies didn’t hit scientific breakeven soon.
If TAE or General Fusion doesn’t deliver results, several people feared the public markets would sour on the entire fusion industry.
Now, not all may be lost. TAE has already started marketing other products, including power electronics and radiation therapy for cancer. That could give the company some near-term revenue to placate shareholders. General Fusion, though, hasn’t revealed any such plans.
And therein lies another divide: fusion companies remain split on whether they should pursue revenue now or wait until they have a working power plant.
Some companies are embracing the opportunity to make money along the way. Not a bad strategy! Fusion is a long game, so why not improve your odds? Both Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Tokamak Energy have said they’ll be selling magnets. TAE and Shine Technologies are both in nuclear medicine.
Other startups are worried that side hustles could become a distraction. Inertia Enterprises, for example, told me that they’re laser-focused on their power plant. That jibes with what another investor told me months ago: — they were worried that fusion startups could get distracted by profitable, but tangential businesses and fall off the lead.
There wasn’t consensus on the right time to go public either. I heard a few proposed milestones. Some believe startups should first reach that scientific breakeven milestone, in which a fusion reaction generates more energy than it needs to ignite. No startup has achieved that yet. The other possibilities are facility breakeven — when the reactor makes more energy than the entire site needs to operate — and commercial viability — when a reactor makes enough electrons to sell a meaningful amount to the grid.
We may have an answer to that question sooner than later. Commonwealth Fusion Systems expects it will hit scientific breakeven sometime next year, and some think the company might use that as an opportunity to go public.
