FlashFeed

If you’re looking to buy an instant film camera, there are only two serious names in the game: Polaroid, and Fujifilm Instax. While some manufacturers like Canon and Kodak offer digital instant-print cameras that use techniques like dye-sublimation to create instant prints of digital images on specialist paper, it’s not the same. For the true alchemical magic of instant film, you Polaroid and Instax are the big hitters. Polaroid is undoubtedly the better-known brand name due to its long history, dating back to the 1940s (though hitting major popularity in the 70s). It spent a few years in the wilderness following a bankruptcy in the early 2000s, before being purchased and revitalised in 2017 by an analog film collective called The Impossible Project. All the proper Polaroid cameras you can buy new today have been released since this renaissance. Instax cameras may not have the historical cachet of Polaroids, but they are massively popular — Fujifilm reported last year that its Instax line has sold more than 100 million units since its inception in 1998. I don’t have similar sales data on post-revival Polaroid, but frankly, I don’t think it’s anywhere close. Ultimately, there are compelling reasons to choose either brand. The Instax mini 12 is TR's pick as the best instant camera, and I can see why — it's a great option for the majority of users. But for me personally, it’s Polaroid all the way. (Image credit: Lauren Scott)Why I’ll pick Polaroid every timeIt’s not a question of print size, as both brands have similar offerings. Fujifilm Instax Wide film is about the same size as a Polaroid I-Type (or SX-70) print, just rectangular rather than square. Polaroid’s smaller ‘Go’ film produces prints of comparable dimensions to Instax mini.What it’s all about is vibe. Scoff if you want, but come on — you’re shooting instant film. You’re not here for accurate colors or pitch-perfect sharpness, you’re here because you love the tangibility of holding a print in your hands, the transportative lo-fi look of a format that’s been around for half a century. It’s all vibe.I’ve shot Polaroid and Instax prints side by side before for comparison. Once, while I was viewing them, my partner made an astute observation that I have since stolen and made my own: the Instax catches your eye first, but you end up liking the Polaroid more. Instax prints are bright and vivid, with naturalistic colors and a decent level of detail, especially the Wide format. They’re fun and kitschy.But Polaroid images just have that inimitable retro glow that instantly transports me back in time. The softer, more muted color palette makes images less immediately striking, but more satisfying the longer I look at them. There’s a richness to them, a greater sense of depth and subtle tonality. If I were embarking on an artistic project with instant film, there’s no question which format I’d choose. It wouldn’t even be a decision.This isn't an entirely fair comparison, as full-size I-Type is always going to beat Instax mini. But for me, while the sky in the Instax looks truer to life, that stylized retro glow on the Polaroid is just so appealing. (Image credit: Jon Stapley) Instax cameras are easier to use for sure — most are just point and shoot. If I were recommending an instant camera for a family, or for someone who isn’t an experienced photographer, I’d go with Instax. But for me, as someone who knows my way around a camera, the depth of control offered by the top-end Polaroid cameras leaves Instax in the dust. Connect to the Polaroid app, which works very smoothly and is highly intuitive, and you can completely program in your settings, taking total control over your images. Want to try your hand at creating long exposures on instant film? It’s straightforward on a Polaroid Flip or Polaroid I-2, and impossible on an Instax Mini 99.Sure, Polaroids aren’t perfect. The ongoing cost of I-Type film is a sore point, with packs of eight shots costing the same as a pack of 20 shots of Instax Wide or Mini. This sucks. No way to pretend it doesn’t. Buying in bulk can help a little, though honestly not a lot. At least the smaller Polaroid Go film is much cheaper, and I prefer it to Instax Mini. Again, its subtler look is less striking, but richer.I really enjoyed shooting with the Go Gen 3. My shots weren't all hits, but there were some that I loved. Again, it's not quite true to life, but it has distinctive character. (Image credit: Jon Stapley)Do you agree? Let me know which is your preferred instant-film format in the poll above. And if you’re looking for an instant-film camera to buy, see my explainer on why the Polaroid Go Gen 2 is the best buy you can make this Prime Day and click on today's best deals where you live using the links below.

Most executives have no idea how much of their website traffic comes from AI agents. If you were to ask which AI agents are legitimate and which are impersonating trusted names to scrape data, they’d struggle to tell them apart, a problem that’s growing by the day.In early 2026, AI and bots generated billions of requests, outpacing internet traffic from humans. This is no longer a fringe activity; AI agents are now a persistent, substantial portion of the traffic hitting websites. Yet most organisations can’t tell you what that traffic is doing, where it’s really coming from, and whether it’s helping or hurting their business.The Volume TrapWhen organisations hear that AI agent traffic is creating billions of requests, the instinct is often to treat it as a monolithic category. It’s not. Lumping all AI agents together is like treating all humans as identical users; it misses the nuance that determines value.Take two agents from the same company: one built to improve search relevance, potentially driving referral traffic back to a website, and another designed purely for large-scale data extraction to train AI models, offering zero benefit to organisations. Both show up in traffic reports, both generate similar volumes, but only one has any upside for businesses. Without the ability to distinguish between them, companies can’t make informed decisions about either. Organisations are flying blind, and the cost of that blindness is steep.The Trust ProblemHere is where it gets trickier: even when an AI agent identifies itself, organisations can’t trust it. Recent data shows that well-known, trusted AI agent names are being actively impersonated at scale. Meta-ExternalAgent was spoofed over 16 million times in early 2026. ChatGPT-User saw nearly 8 million fraudulent requests using its name. PerplexityBot had nearly 2.4% of all requests claiming to be legitimate turn out to be fake.If website allowlists – approved lists granted automatic access - certain AI agents by name, assuming they are legitimate crawlers, a fake agent string is essentially a skeleton key. Bad actors know this and are using trusted agent identities as cover to bypass defenses and extract whatever data they want.The exposure isn’t theoretical. Testing across 700k high-traffic websites revealed that the vast majority return full access to spoofed AI agent requests with no verification whatsoever.The Agentic Browser ChallengeTraditional AI crawlers are only part of the story. A newer, more sophisticated vector is emerging: agentic browsers. These tools don’t just request a page, they simulate full browser sessions and interact with a site like a human user. They’re harder to detect and harder to distinguish from legitimate traffic, and they are showing up in force across the industries with the most valuable transactional data.In February 2026, agentic browser traffic was concentrated in ecommerce and retail (about 20% of volume) and travel and tourism (15%). These sectors hold some of the most valuable transactional data on the internet: pricing data, inventory information, customer behavior patterns, and competitive intelligence. For businesses in any of these sectors it’s time to start actively monitoring for agentic browser activity, as organisations may be leaking data without realising it.What This Means for Decision MakersThe implications of this visibility gap are immediate and material. Invisible traffic is unmanaged traffic. Companies that can’t identify traffic can’t decide what to do with it. Should it block it? Throttle it? Allowlist it? Monetise it? Without clear visibility, decisions become guesswork.High volume does not equal high value. Some AI agents drive search visibility and referral traffic. Others extract data and contribute nothing in return. By treating them the same, organisations are subsidising data collection efforts with no upside for a business.Relying on basic bot detection doesn’t cut it anymore. Agentic browsers behave like real users and simple signal-based detection misses them. Organisations need behavioural analysis that accounts for session patterns, timing, interaction signatures, and other contextual indicators.Where to StartGetting control of AI agent traffic starts with visibility. Organisations need to log and classify what is hitting sites, by agent type, behaviour, and claimed identity without relying solely on user-agent strings, as they’re easy to spoof. Agent classification is an ongoing practice. As the AI agent ecosystem evolves quickly, with new agents appearing regularly and existing ones changing behaviour, in-time assessments go stale fast.Establish a tiered access framework, but make it session-specific, not agent-specific. The same AI agent can exhibit legitimate behaviour in one session and extractive behaviour in another. Intent-based detection evaluates what an agent is doing in real time, not just what it claims to be. Is it browsing product pages at a human pace or scraping an entire catalogue? The behaviour in each session should determine the response.Companies should stop assuming that because something identifies itself as a known agent, it is legitimate. The cost of blind trust is too high. Verify everything. AI agents are not going away. Their traffic will continue to grow, and their behaviour will continue to evolve. The organisations that thrive in this environment will be the ones that can see clearly what is happening on their websites and make deliberate, informed decisions about what to allow and what to block.Right now, most organisations can’t, and that needs to change. AI agents are already interacting with websites. The question is whether organisations know what they’re doing while they’re there.We feature the best website builders.This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

O2's 2G networks set to be pulled from 2029 in line with industry4G and 5G networks are more secure and more efficientSome IoT and connected systems still use 2GVirgin Media O2 (VMO2) has become the latest UK mobile operator to announce plans to shut down its legacy 2G networks, beginning in 2029.At the same time, VMO2 said not having to look after 2G networks will free up more resources to look after, and improve, 4G and 5G network capacity, speeds and reliability.The company already started shutting down its 3G networks in 2025, with a national cutoff planned as soon as this year, but 2G networks remained open in the meantime.VMO2 to start pulling 2G networks from 2029EE is also turning off its 2G networks from 2029, with VodafoneThree following suit in 2030.While VMO2 promises to warn customers to help them identify affected devices and migrate to more modern networks, most smartphone users are unlikely to notice an impact because modern smartphones rely on 4G and 5G networks instead.But IoT devices, smart meters, payment terminals, alarm systems and other crucial infrastructure has traditionally used 2G networks."While most customers won’t need to take any action at all, some businesses might need to start planning for this now," CTO Jeanie York explained.The industry-wide 2G shutdown ultimately falls under government plans to strengthen telecoms security, following concerns over supply chain risks, cyberattacks and the general security of critical national infrastructure.VMO2 also disclosed the environmental benefits of the shutdown. Though its 2G networks only carry 0.5% of all VMO2 mobile network traffic, it accounts for more than 10% of the company’s total cell site energy consumption. The company declared that its 4G and 5G networks are 10x more efficient.