Connect with us

Technologies

iPhone 17 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra Cameras Compared: Which Is the Photography King?

Both phones are amazing, but which one takes better photos? As a professional photographer, I wanted to find out.

Today’s top phones come with high performance specs across the board, and that includes the camera systems. With a great camera phone in your hand, you can take superb images that can help you on your way to Instagram stardom. Or whatever. The iPhone 17 Pro and Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra are no exceptions. Both phones impressed us in their respective reviews, and both pack camera setups that offer stiff competition to the likes of Google and Oppo. But how do they compare with each other?

To find out, I took them out on multiple image-capturing missions around Edinburgh, testing them in a variety of conditions and then scrutinizing the results. 

With phones at this level, there often won’t be a “winner” in each test. Many results will come down to personal preference, as you’ll see here.

Read more: Best Camera Phone of 2025

As a professional photographer, I prefer a more true-to-life image, with natural tones and rich contrast, that provides a good baseline for me to apply my own edits should I want to. 

I also dislike over-processing, which can make an image look too digital and artificial. Some of you may disagree, preferring instead more vibrant images with strong saturation and clarity that can be shared directly to social without any extra effort on your part. Either stance is fine, but it’s why tests like these need to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

With that said, let’s dive in and take a look at the images. All shots were taken in each phone’s standard camera app in JPEG (or HEIF for some of the iPhone’s images) and have been imported and resized in Adobe Lightroom, but with no additional edits or sharpening applied. 


Don’t miss any of our unbiased tech content and lab-based reviews. Add CNET as a preferred Google source.


iPhone 17 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Main camera tests

Like any average day of mine, this test begins with plenty of bread and melted cheese. Both shots look great, with great detail and even exposure. The colors on the S25 Ultra are marginally richer, which I don’t mind here as it helps the food really pop. 

Outside in the Autumn light, I love the colors captured by both phones. The iPhone’s image has richer contrast, with deeper black levels that I think look better, but otherwise, there’s very little to choose between them. 

It’s the same when I got close to this leaf. I think the iPhone’s bokeh (the out-of-focus background) looks a little nicer, but I slightly prefer the deeper tones on the S25 Ultra. (These are true optical bokeh, not portrait-mode style processing.) Toss a coin and choose your favorite.

There’s a much bigger difference here, though. While the exposure is comparable, the S25 Ultra’s colors are significantly more saturated than those of the iPhone — notice the blue boat hull and the reddish building at the right. Is that good? Well, that again comes down to opinion. To my eye, Samsung’s shot looks overly saturated to the point of looking quite fake. I much prefer the more muted, almost filmic tones of the iPhone. 

And it’s almost exactly the same story when I switched to the ultrawide cameras of both phones. The S25 Ultra delivered a highly saturated image while the iPhone’s is much more subtle.

The Galaxy S25 Ultra has done a better job here, though, color-wise, with warmer, more autumnal tones that suit the scene well. The iPhone’s shot looks a little cold by comparison. 

But just to confuse the result, while the iPhone’s colors might not look as nice, when I looked close up at the details around the edge, I noticed that its shot has noticeably better clarity, while the S25 Ultra’s image has lost a lot of detail. Will you ever notice that difference? Almost certainly not, especially if you’re only posting to Instagram or sending messages over WhatsApp. However, when both phones are over $1,000, you’d better believe I’m going to nitpick harder than you ever thought possible. 

That said, I actually don’t have a lot to say between these two shots inside a museum in Edinburgh. Both are well-exposed, and while the iPhone has leaned slightly more toward a magenta white balance, I don’t really see that as either a good or a bad thing. Take your pick. 

I definitely prefer the iPhone’s shot when switching to the ultrawide lens, though. The S25 Ultra has evidently tried to pull down the highlights on the reflection on the floor, leaving it looking a little gloomy. The floor pops more in the iPhone’s shot, which adds nicer contrast to the scene overall.

Here’s another example of more vibrant tones from the S25 Ultra, with the iPhone looking more natural. I know which I prefer (the iPhone, if you haven’t been paying attention), but there’s nothing wrong with the S25 Ultra’s shot either. 

And in this image, looking up at some golden leaves, I can see almost no discernible difference whatsoever. Lovely stuff.

The iPhone’s shot is definitely much brighter here, and it looks better for it. I’m not sure why the S25 Ultra has underexposed its image, but it’s made the scene look quite drab as a result.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Zoom photos

Both phones have dedicated optical zoom lenses, with the iPhone’s going up to 8x (what Apple calls “optical quality,” which is a processed crop of the 48-megapixel sensor) and the S25 Ultra going slightly further to 10X. Both phones offer different preset zoom levels in between. 

Starting at 8x on the iPhone and 10x on the Galaxy, this shot of golden leaves looks great on both, with vibrant tones and solid details.

While using the iPhone at 4x zoom and the S25 Ultra at 5x, I again think that both phones have done a great job. The iPhone has leaned slightly harder into warmer autumnal tones, with the greens of the grass and leaves looking more vibrant and emerald in the S25 Ultra’s image. 

At 5x zoom, the Galaxy S25 Ultra’s image looks quite dull and underexposed, with a slight magenta shift to its colors. The iPhone’s shot at 4x zoom appears brighter, with more pleasing colors.

And it’s much the same at the full 8x and 10x zoom levels; the iPhone offers better contrast and colors. 

I’ve found the Galaxy can struggle with its colors more when zooming than when using the main camera. Take this as an example:

At the standard focal length of the main camera, these images are almost identical, with beautiful warm tones captured by both phones.

But zooming in to 2x has really thrown the Galaxy off. Its white balance instead errs on the colder side, with a more pronounced magenta bias, losing the lovely golden light that’s still present in the iPhone’s image.

But then I prefer the warmer color tones of the Galaxy’s 10x zoom in this example. The tree leaves look noticeably warmer and rich.

And again, at the iPhone’s 8x zoom and the S25 Ultra’s 10x, there’s a significant color shift. The iPhone’s image appears more cyan-toned overall — and I think it has slightly better contrast as well. 

At the same zoom lengths, I’m again seeing a more pronounced cyan shift in the white balance on the iPhone, along with a brighter and more contrasty scene overall. For my taste, I prefer the iPhone, but the S25 Ultra is still technically solid. 

It’s interesting to see how each phone performs better in different scenarios, almost there’s almost no rhyme or reason I can see as to why. In some zoom images, the iPhone appears warmer and richer, while at other times, the S25 does. It makes it very difficult for me as a tech writer to consider either one a winner, though, as it largely comes down to personal preference.

iPhone 17 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Night mode

Switching to night mode on the main camera, the iPhone’s image is noticeable brighter (particularly in the cobbled street and the sky), although that slight cyan shift is now in the S25 Ultra’s image. The S25’s shot is also marginally sharper, but you’ve really got to zoom in close to see the difference. 

And it’s a similar story here. The iPhone’s shot is brighter in the sky and with noticeably less image noise, but the details on the buildings are much clearer on the S25 Ultra’s image. 

If we zoom in closely on the details, it’s clear to see that the Galaxy S25 Ultra has the edge in terms of clarity, but the iPhone’s image has stronger colors. 

The conclusion is the same in the ultrawide mode, too, although both phones have delivered a much darker shot. Ultrawide night mode still has some way to go, regardless of the phone you choose.

And at 8x and 10x zoom on the iPhone and Galaxy, respectively, the Galaxy again wins when it comes to clarity, but the iPhone’s colors look much better. 

iPhone 17 Pro vs. Galaxy S25 Ultra: Selfie test

There was no way I was going to publish this many photos without putting my own big stupid face on the page somewhere. And I have to say the iPhone has done a far superior job in capturing said face. The exposure is brighter with better contrast, the colors are warmer and punchier, and the details are better, too. The S25 Ultra’s image looks really rather drab in comparison. 

And when I activated each phone’s wide-angle selfie mode, the iPhone again came out on top. The better exposure, contrast and colors are still the case, but it also offers a much wider view than the S25 Ultra can manage. This could be helpful if you’re trying to squash loads of your friends into the scene or, like me, good if you want to show a lot of extra space around you where friends could be if you’d bothered to make any or talk to anyone outside of the workplace. 

iPhone 17 Pro vs. Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra: Which has the better camera? 

After many test photos taken, miles walked and millions of pixels peeped at on screen, I can finally conclude that the best camera phone between the iPhone 17 Pro and the Galaxy S25 Ultra is… drumroll please…

You decide. 

Is that the best I can do based on my 14 years of experience as a tech journalist and photographer? Honestly, yes. Both phones have performed extremely well in these tests, and neither can be objectively considered significantly better than the other in any major way. 

The S25 Ultra, like almost all of Samsung’s phones, tends to lean more toward highly saturated colors, while the iPhone keeps things a bit more natural. At night, the Galaxy is sharper, but the iPhone has better colors. Sometimes the iPhone’s zoom shots looked richer, while other times the S25 Ultra’s zoom images were preferable. Preferable to me, anyway. 

As I mentioned at the beginning of this test, I take a more subtle approach with my photos, preferring a natural base image that gives me more scope for applying my own edits in apps like Adobe Lightroom or Google’s Snapseed. The iPhone 17 Pro remains my preferred camera phone for that reason, but many of you will likely love the punchier look offered by the Galaxy phone. 

The one area where the iPhone certainly came out on top is with the front camera, so if high-quality gurning selfies are your thing, go with the iPhone.

Really, either phone is an absolute cracker when it comes to photography, and it really shouldn’t come down to camera performance if you’re struggling to decide whether to go Android or iOS. 

Technologies

U.S. diesel price tops $6 per gallon, a record high as Ukraine and Iran wars ripple through economy

U.S. diesel prices hit their highest level ever as fuel supply disruption stemming from the Ukraine and Iran wars lifts transportation costs.

U.S. diesel prices hit $6 per gallon on Friday for the first time ever, as fuel supply disruptions triggered by the Ukraine and Iran wars raises transportation costs across the entire economy.

Truckers and farmers are paying about 63% more to fill up their semis and tractors than they did at this time last year, according to data from AAA. The average price nationwide is now about $6.06 per gallon.

Prices are even higher in California, the biggest agriculture state in the U.S., at $7.98 per gallon.

Fuel costs are rising as crude oil prices have surged in response to a sharp escalation in fighting between the U.S. and Iran this month. U.S. crude oil futures topped $100 per barrel on Thursday for the first time since May. The contract has gained about 20% in September.

Diesel is the real lifeblood of the economy even though consumers tend to pay more attention to retail gasoline prices, said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy, in an interview with CNBC’s “The Exchange” on Tuesday.

Higher diesel prices are passed down to consumers in what they pay for food, consumer goods and energy. Diesel fuels the trucks, trains and ships that bring goods to market. It powers the machinery that farmers use to plant and harvest food. And it heats homes and generates electricity in some cases.

This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.

To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.

“It’s the more insidious, more costly, and more impactful fuel,” McNally said. “As we climb higher, it is a real concern.”

Diesel prices at these levels will be a “silent killer” for the economy, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, in an interview with CNBC’s “Power Lunch” Tuesday.

Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have never been this high this late in the year, De Haan said. Prices at the pump hit a Labor Day record of $4.15 per gallon earlier this week. Americans are spending about $700 million more per day on gas and diesel than they did a year ago, the analyst said.

“There’s sticker shock there for consumers,” De Haan said.

Fuel costs are rising as the Iran and Ukraine wars have disrupted global supplies. Kyiv has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports. Iran and its militant Houthi allies in Yemen have also hit the refineries of U.S. Gulf allies. Fuel exports through the Strait of Hormuz are constrained due to the Iranian attacks on tankers.

The wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have shut down refineries with about 5 million barrels per day of capacity, said Valero Chief Operating Officer Gary Simmons on the U.S. refiner’s July 30 earnings call.

The world has lost nearly 8% of its diesel supply with little spare refining capacity available to make up the shortfall, said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, in a Wednesday note.

Rising diesel prices pose an “enormous challenge” for the Trump administration, said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, in a Sept. 4 interview with CNBC’s “Power Lunch.”

“U.S. refineries are running at 98% utilization rates — there is just no spare capacity,” Croft said.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Buffett’s confidence in troubled decade-old acquisition finally pays off

Warren Buffett has said he paid too much for Precision Castparts in 2016. Now its complex metal castings are in high demand.

(This is the Warren Buffett Watch newsletter, news and analysis on all things Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. You can sign up here to receive it every Friday evening in your inbox.)

Buffett’s confidence in troubled decade-old acquisition finally pays off

Six years ago, when Berkshire Hathaway took an $11 billion write-down of its $37.2 billion 2016 acquisition of Precision Castparts, Warren Buffett wrote in his annual letter to shareholders he had paid “too much” for the company, which makes “complex metal components and products.”

While it was a “fine company – the best in its business,” he had been “simply too optimistic” about its profit potential, a “miscalculation … laid bare” by the enormous downturn for the aerospace industry, Precision Castparts’ largest customers, amid the Covid pandemic.

In a CNBC interview when the deal was first announced, Buffett admitted it was “a very high multiple for us to pay,” but told shareholders at the 2016 meeting he had great confidence in Mark Donegan, the company’s CEO, both then and now, and the company’s long-term profit outlook.

It’s taken longer than he planned, but Buffett’s purchase is now looking pretty good.

As Reuters puts it, there is currently a shortage of the “complex” products Precision Castparts makes that are essential for engine turbine blades.

They’re also used in natural gas turbines, which are in demand to produce energy for artificial intelligence data centers.

This week, GE Aerospace announced it would pay $11.75 billion to acquire Consolidated Precision Products, one of the few companies that competes against Precision Castparts.

Barron’s calls that “pricey” at 26 times projected 2027 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.

Using the same multiple, Barron’s estimates Precision Castparts is worth around $100 billion. That’s well above the potential value of $60 billion to $75 billion it cited in an article last month that said the unit “probably has become one of the more valuable divisions” of Berkshire.

It’s also nearly three times the 2016 purchase price.

In the Barron’s piece, Andrew Bary said Berkshire, and its share price, aren’t “getting much credit” for the subsidiary’s rising value, in part because CEO Greg Abel, like Buffett, doesn’t do analyst conference calls or investor events that could draw attention to the unit’s performance.

His recommendation: “Without Warren Buffett at the helm, Berkshire may have to start telling its story if it wants to attract a new generation of investors. This year’s trading action suggests that something may need to change.”

Berkshire bounces a bit as Wall Street sells off

Berkshire Hathaway shares managed a modest gain this week even as Wall Street’s major averages declined, a small departure from the 2026 “trading action” Bary cites.

Both the Class A and Class B shares gained almost 0.9% while the S&P 500 fell by 0.8%.

Until Friday’s bounce, that benchmark index, along with the Dow Industrials and the Nasdaq Composite, had dropped four days in a row as oil and bond yields moved higher.

Even with this week’s outperformance, Berkshire’s B shares still trail the S&P 500 by more than 10 percentage points so far this year.

Nebraska candidate moves to replace ad that included Buffett’s image

The campaign team for the Republican running in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District accelerated the deployment of a new campaign ad after Susie Buffett complained about a previous commercial that briefly included an image of her father, Warren Buffett.

In the ad, a picture of Buffett and his name appear on screen for roughly two seconds as candidate Brinker Harding says, “Here in Omaha, we know a thing or two about the stock market, some more than others. But we do it without insider information.”

He then goes on to highlight his call for a ban on Congressional stock trading, saying some lawmakers “trade on secrets you’ll never know,” as they “get rich” while “we barely get by.”

In a report that led its 10 PM CT newscast Wednesday evening, ABC affiliate KETV in Omaha reported Susie Buffett had asked Harding on Sept. 2 to remove the ad.

She told the station, “I think it’s worth it to say that Warren did not give Brinker his permission to use his face or name in his ad.

“It implies that my dad endorses him. He did not have permission to use it.”

The KETV report quoted Harding as saying in a statement, “In Nebraska, we work hard and support each other, and we do it honestly. Warren Buffett exemplifies that, and that was the point of my ad.”

The report said Harding did not comment on whether the ad would be taken down but noted “it does look like new ads from his campaign are beginning to run on some stations.”

A Harding campaign spokesperson told me the campaign did not think its ad implied a Buffett endorsement, but to be respectful to the Buffett family, it responded to her concern by accelerating the rollout of its next planned ad by several days, although its effort was hampered by the Labor Day weekend.

The commercial now running does not show or mention Buffett.

BUFFETT & BERKSHIRE AROUND THE INTERNET

Some links may require a subscription:

– Best’s News and Research Service: 2026 Best’s Rankings: Berkshire Hathaway Takes DPW Top Spot Among Accident & Health Lines

– Financial Times: The day Warren Buffett saved Salomon Brothers

HIGHLIGHTS FROM CNBC’S BUFFETT ARCHIVE

The effects of 9/11 on Berkshire and the insurance industry (2002)

Warren Buffett shares his thoughts on the 9/11 attacks and explains how Berkshire’s insurance companies have started taking terrorism into account when writing policies.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know you lost a lot of money as a result of 9/11. But I would like to know how 9/11 changed your life and your investment strategy?

WARREN BUFFETT: It made everybody, I think, in the country aware, I mean, we’ve gone through world wars and all of that, and essentially felt quite protected within these borders.

And I have been quite worried about — Charlie can attest to — you know, the possibility, particularly of some kind of nuclear device in this country, by — probably more likely by terrorists than by some, at least, declared act of war by another state.

And 9/11 made everybody realize that as humans have not progressed, particularly, in terms of how they behave with each other over the years, they have progressed enormously in their ability to inflict damage on those they hate for one reason or another…

In terms of the business aspects of it, in your question, obviously the area at Berkshire that it effects most significantly, by miles, is insurance.

And prior to 9/11, even though we recognized that there could be huge monetary damages that flowed from the activities of what I would call deranged people, we hadn’t really written the contracts in such a way as to either get paid for taking that risk or to exclude the risk. In other words, we were throwing it in for nothing.

We had excluded risk for war. I mean, we knew that we’d seen what had happened in England in the 40s, and so we had taken account of something that some of us had seen with our own eyes, but we didn’t take account of something that we knew was possible, but we just hadn’t seen. And that’s, you know, that’s the human condition, to some degree.

Since September 11th, everybody in the insurance business recognizes that they had exposures that they weren’t charging for, and they either had to exclude those exposures or they had to charge for them.

We have written — first thing we had to do, of course, is we had lots of policies on the books that left us exposed to this, and most of those policies ran for a year, starting at different points. Those have run off to a great degree, but they’re not entirely run off.

The other thing we did was on new policies. We have sold a fair amount, quite a large amount, of terrorism insurance that excludes what we call NCB, nuclear, chemical, and biological, as well as fire following nuclear.

And, we can take a fair amount of exposure to that sort of terrorism, because it doesn’t — it won’t aggregate. It aggregated at the Twin Towers in a way that — World Trade Center — in a way that just about was as extreme as you could get for non-NCB-type activities.

I mean, that was a huge amount of damage done without nuclear, chemical, or biological.

But we can have tens of billions of dollars with NCB excluded throughout a greater New York area, or something, but we can’t have hundreds of billions of exposure that would be exposed, say, to, nuclear activities, because there an act or two, or three, coordinated, could cause damage that would destroy the insurance industry.

And if we had coverage on that, it would destroy us as well.

BERKSHIRE STOCK WATCH

Four weeks

Twelve months

BRK.A stock price: $766,000.00

BRK.B stock price: $510.37

BRK.B P/E (TTM): 12.83

Berkshire Cash as of June 30: $365.5 billion (Down 8.0% from March 31)

Excluding Rail Cash and Subtracting T-Bills Payable: $359.2 billion (Down 3.8% from March 31)

Berkshire repurchased $4.5 billion of its shares in Q2 2026.

BERKSHIRE’S TOP EQUITY HOLDINGS – Sep. 11, 2026

Berkshire’s top holdings of disclosed publicly traded stocks in the U.S. and Japan, by market value, based on the latest closing prices.

Holdings are as of June 30, 2026, as reported in Berkshire Hathaway’s 13F filing on August 14, 2026, except for:

– Mitsubishi, which is as of April 30, 2026

The full list of holdings and current market values is available from CNBC.com’s Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

Please send any questions or comments about the newsletter to me at alex.crippen@cnbc.com. (Sorry, but we don’t forward questions or comments to Buffett himself.)

If you aren’t already subscribed to this newsletter, you can sign up here.

Also, Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders are highly recommended reading. There are collected here on Berkshire’s website.

— Alex Crippen, Editor, Warren Buffett Watch

Continue Reading

Technologies

Wall Street firm warns AI stock rally may be nearing its end: key reasons

Capital Economics says that while the S&P 500 may keep rising this year, the AI‑driven rally shows multiple bubble indicators and is expected to peak within months, with a projected decline to 6,500 by late 2027.

Various signs of a market bubble indicate that although the S&P 500’s rally can continue this year, its medium‑term outlook appears weak because the market has become overly frothy, according to Capital Economics.

James Reilly, senior market economist at Capital Economics, noted on Thursday that most indicators point to the AI equity rally being close to its end.

Since mid‑2023, Capital has been more optimistic than most about the stock market, viewing AI as a transformative technology.

The firm’s year‑end 2026 S&P 500 forecast has consistently exceeded consensus estimates.

Nevertheless, Capital maintains that the AI‑driven rally is a bubble destined to burst.

To identify a late‑stage bubble, Reilly examines eight metrics: valuations, earnings, index concentration, equity issuance, and foreign interest in U.S. stocks.

Several of these metrics are already at or near levels seen before past market peaks.

While earnings expectations appear aligned with a market top, measures such as volatility and leverage are somewhat less concerning.

Earnings are the most significant warning sign.

S&P 500 earnings growth expectations are hovering at levels only seen at the dot‑com bubble peak, and long‑term EPS forecasts have reached a record high.

Reilly argues that the tech sector’s heavy concentration of this growth means any weakness in tech earnings will heavily drag on the index.

Additional warning signals are also emerging.

Index concentration is approaching dot‑com era extremes, net equity issuance has turned positive, and foreign ownership of U.S. stocks is at a record level.

Reilly warns that another wave of IPOs and share sales could be especially significant, as past issuance booms have historically coincided with market peaks.

He adds that, based on history, the bubble’s end is likely just months away, not years.

Leverage measures are not yet alarming compared with other factors, though the analyst cautions they are moving in a concerning direction.

Volatility indicators resemble those of a mid‑stage bubble, but constituent‑level volatility is not as extreme as at the dot‑com bust’s end.

Reilly expects the S&P 500 to rise from roughly 7,650 now to about 8,250 by the end of 2026, but ultimately projects a decline to 6,500 by the end of 2027.

These projections imply an 8% gain this year and a 21% drop in 2027.

Most signs point to the AI equity rally being close to its conclusion, Capital Economics senior market economist James Reilly stated on Thursday in a note.

The platform has become part of Versant. By using this service, you accept our Terms and acknowledge the revised Privacy Policy, which also covers existing data. For details on your data rights, click the link.

We will also employ essential and service‑related cookies, including those for security and fraud prevention.

– Gather device data and leverage it for personalized ads, ad metrics, audience insights, and service improvements.

– Privacy Management

– Essential Functions

– Record and convey user privacy preferences 515 partners can use this special purpose

– Maintain security, thwart fraud, and resolve issues 649 partners can use this special purpose

– Provide and display ads and content 638 partners can use this special purpose

– Collect and retrieve device data 844 partners can use this purpose

– Tailor ads and content, measure performance, conduct audience research, and develop services 985 partners can use this purpose

– Targeted Ads

– Content Curation

– Employ limited data for ad selection 785 partners can use this purpose

– Build profiles for personalized ads 631 partners can use this purpose

– Develop profiles for content personalization 259 partners can use this purpose

– Utilize profiles to choose personalized content 231 partners can use this purpose

– Track advertising performance 908 partners can use this purpose

– Assess content performance 403 partners can use this purpose

– Analyze audiences using cross‑source statistics 573 partners can use this purpose

– Enhance and evolve services 680 partners can use this purpose

– Select content using limited data 179 partners can use this purpose

– Always Required

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media