Samsung wants more than the occasional blood pressure reading

Samsung already offers manual blood pressure checks on compatible Galaxy Watch models, while the newer Blood Pressure Trend feature looks at overnight data to estimate morning blood pressure.

The new hypertension study goes beyond simply giving users another blood pressure reading. Samsung is collecting Galaxy Watch and phone sensor data specifically to study hypertension, with the stated aim of using that research to help create future health features. That points to Samsung exploring whether the watch can do more than estimate blood pressure. 

Hypertension alerts would be the obvious next step

Our guess, and this is speculation, is that Samsung is looking beyond showing people blood pressure estimates. The bigger prize would be identifying longer-term patterns that suggest someone may have hypertension, then prompting them to check with a proper cuff or seek medical advice.

There is already plenty of movement in that direction elsewhere. Apple introduced hypertension notifications that look for cardiovascular patterns over time rather than trying to turn the Watch into a traditional blood pressure monitor.

Google followed a remarkably similar research path. It recruited Pixel Watch users for a hypertension study last year, collecting wearable data and comparing a subset of it with ambulatory blood pressure measurements. That work has since fed into Google’s wider Health Guardian push, including Blood Pressure Trends for Fitbit and Pixel Watch devices.

Samsung therefore has plenty of incentive to push further. Giving someone a morning blood pressure estimate is useful, but automatically noticing that their cardiovascular data has been drifting in the wrong direction for several weeks would be even more useful.

Who can join the study

Samsung is recruiting participants through the Samsung Health app, with the invitation appearing in the Promotions section for eligible users. The study uses data from both the Galaxy Watch and connected phone, so Samsung is clearly looking at a broader set of health signals rather than just individual blood pressure readings.

For Galaxy Watch owners, it is worth checking Samsung Health to see whether the invitation has appeared. The study itself may not change anything on your watch today, but it gives us a pretty good indication of where Samsung’s cardiovascular health work is heading next.

The post Samsung study points to Galaxy Watch hypertension alerts appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The Galaxy Aero first surfaced earlier this month, when SamMobile reported finding references to an unreleased Samsung wearable inside the Galaxy Wearable app. Two strings stood out: Galaxy Aero and galaxy_rtos_watch.

That second reference is the more interesting one. Samsung’s mainstream Galaxy Watches run Wear OS, while its simpler Galaxy Fit devices use a much lighter real-time operating system. Calling something galaxy_rtos_watch suggests Aero isn’t simply another fitness band with a new name.

SamMobile suggested the device could eventually sit somewhere between the upcoming Galaxy Fit 4 and the Galaxy Watch FE. Nothing about the final name, price, shape or launch date has been confirmed, so Aero could still change considerably before release.

But after digging through two of Samsung’s current wearable apps, the idea of an RTOS Galaxy watch doesn’t look particularly far-fetched.

Samsung Health is already built to handle RTOS wearables

We started with Samsung Health 7.00.6.004. There is no direct mention of Galaxy Aero in the APK, and there is no hidden galaxy_rtos_watch string either.

What Samsung Health does contain is existing infrastructure for RTOS devices.

One package referenced by the app is:

com.samsung.rtosfit.app.shealth.sport

Tracing that package through the code leads to Samsung’s older Galaxy Fit, Galaxy Fit e and Galaxy Fit2 devices. So this isn’t secret Aero support that Samsung accidentally left exposed. It is existing RTOS plumbing.

More interestingly, Samsung Health doesn’t need every wearable to be completely hardcoded. Its capability system reads information supplied by connected devices, including fields such as os, modelName, tracker_feature and sleep-related capabilities.

The operating-system handling specifically recognises rtos.

That could become important for Aero. Samsung Health already knows how to receive capability information from an RTOS wearable, meaning Samsung wouldn’t necessarily need a separate health platform just because the device doesn’t run Wear OS.

Galaxy Wearable reveals another piece of the puzzle

We also pulled apart Galaxy Wearable 2.2.70.26060861.

This particular version doesn’t contain either Galaxy Aero or galaxy_rtos_watch. That might sound like evidence against the original finding, but the APK itself provides a good reason why that conclusion would be premature.

Buried inside the app are references to:

galaxy_wearable_configuration.json

and:

device_lists

There are also code paths containing messages such as added new device from the server and will use data from the server.

In other words, the list of Samsung wearables doesn’t have to be frozen inside the APK that someone downloads from the Play Store or Galaxy Store. Samsung can supply newer device definitions through its servers.

So the absence of Aero from our APK isn’t especially surprising. The information SamMobile found appears to be newer than at least some of the product data contained in this public build, whether that came from a newer app version, Samsung’s server configuration or another part of the Galaxy Wearable codebase.

Aero could fill a gap Samsung hasn’t really tackled

The bigger question is why Samsung would make this device at all.

Aero could give Samsung something that Galaxy Watch has always struggled to deliver: smartwatch-style hardware with genuinely long battery life. Dropping Wear OS would reduce processor, memory and power requirements considerably, potentially allowing Samsung to target a week or more between charges rather than the much shorter endurance expected from a full Wear OS watch.

There would be compromises. An RTOS device wouldn’t necessarily offer the Play Store, the same third-party app support or all the software flexibility of the current Galaxy Watch9. Samsung would effectively be choosing battery life and simplicity over running a miniature Android computer on the wrist.

That trade-off isn’t necessarily a bad one.

There is plenty of space between a basic fitness band and a full smartwatch. Huawei, Amazfit and others have shown that watches can offer AMOLED displays, notifications, GPS, health tracking, calls and lengthy battery life without needing Wear OS. Aero could be Samsung’s attempt at the same formula.

APK teardown note

This article is based on an APK teardown. Code found inside an app can reveal features or devices that are under development, but there is no guarantee they will appear in a future public release.

The post Samsung’s apps show how Galaxy Aero could work without Wear OS appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Pixel Watch 5 and Galaxy Watch 9 are pretty close on paper. Both run Wear OS 7, both have bright 3,000-nit AMOLED screens, both get dual-frequency GPS and both come in two sizes. The bigger differences are in what they focus on. Samsung packs in more health hardware and a tougher build, while Google leans more into GPS accuracy, safety features, smarter software and better battery life.

Let’s get into the detail.

Google Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 at a glance

These are arguably the two most obvious Wear OS choices for Android users in 2026. But they approach the job quite differently. Pixel Watch 5 is the cleaner Google-first option, while Galaxy Watch 9 packs in more sensors and gives Samsung Galaxy owners a deeper health ecosystem.

There are also a few differences that are easy to miss when looking only at the headline specifications. Google gives Pixel Watch 5 twice the storage of Galaxy Watch 9, Samsung uses sapphire crystal rather than Gorilla Glass, and the larger Pixel has a noticeable battery advantage on paper.

Google’s official specifications confirm the 64GB storage, dual-frequency GPS, Bluetooth 6.0 and 332mAh/465mAh batteries. Samsung lists 2GB of RAM, 32GB of storage, 390mAh/445mAh batteries and dual-frequency L1/L5 GPS for Galaxy Watch 9.

Our full wearable comparison tool goes deeper into the individual specifications. The more useful question here is how these differences affect the experience of actually owning the watches.

Google sticks with the dome while Samsung goes flatter

These watches could hardly look more different considering they run essentially the same underlying operating system. Pixel Watch 5 continues Google’s pebble-like design with a perfectly round aluminium case and curved glass flowing into its sides, while Samsung uses the cushion-shaped housing introduced with the previous Galaxy Watch generation.

Samsung has a practical advantage here. Galaxy Watch 9 uses sapphire crystal and carries both IP68 and MIL-STD-810H ratings, while Pixel Watch 5 uses curved Gorilla Glass 5 with IP68 and 5 ATM water resistance. The curved Pixel glass is visually distinctive, but the Samsung is the one I would rather accidentally knock against a wall.

The official thickness figures also favour Samsung quite heavily, at 8.6mm compared with 12.3mm for either Pixel Watch 5. Manufacturer measurements are not always directly comparable because curved sensor housings can be treated differently, but Galaxy Watch 9 should still sit flatter on the wrist.

Weight is almost a draw at the smaller size. The 41mm Pixel weighs 31g compared with 31.5g for the 40mm Galaxy, while the 44mm Samsung comes in at 34g versus 36.7g for Google’s 45mm watch.

Displays are equally bright at up to 3,000 nits, so outdoor readability should not provide much reason to choose one over the other. Pixel Watch 5 does have an LTPO panel that can vary between 1Hz and 60Hz and drop to one nit with the always-on display, while Samsung counters with the more scratch-resistant sapphire covering.

Samsung has the faster chip but Google gives you more memory

One of the biggest Galaxy Watch 9 changes sits underneath the display. Samsung has switched to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite, a 3nm five-core platform, after several generations of relying on its own Exynos processors.

Google is using Qualcomm hardware too, but not the same chip. Pixel Watch 5 gets the Snapdragon W5 Gen 2 Accelerated alongside its Cortex-M55 coprocessor, with Google claiming a 12% CPU improvement and roughly 20% faster overall performance than Pixel Watch 4.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

On raw processor hardware, Galaxy Watch 9 looks stronger. That does not automatically mean it will feel dramatically faster in normal use, though, and Google has made an interesting decision elsewhere.

Pixel Watch 5 has 3GB of RAM and 64GB of storage, compared with 2GB and 32GB on Galaxy Watch 9. We covered that memory jump in more detail in our Pixel Watch 5 vs Pixel Watch 4 comparison, and it may become increasingly useful as Wear OS pushes more AI processing and background tasks onto the watch itself.

Google Pixel Watch 5

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

So Samsung probably has the more powerful processor, while Google gives its watch more room to breathe. Over several years of software updates, that 3GB/64GB combination could prove every bit as useful as having the faster chipset.

Battery life depends heavily on which size you buy

Looking only at battery capacity gives a slightly misleading impression. The 40mm Galaxy Watch 9 has a substantially larger 390mAh battery than the 332mAh cell inside the 41mm Pixel Watch 5, yet both manufacturers quote up to 30 hours with the always-on display enabled.

Move to the larger watches and things change. Pixel Watch 5 has a 465mAh battery and Google quotes up to 40 hours with the always-on display active, while the 44mm Galaxy Watch 9 has a slightly smaller 445mAh battery and Samsung sticks with 30 hours.

Google also claims up to 72 hours in Battery Saver mode from the 45mm model, compared with Samsung’s broader claim of up to 40 hours when the always-on display is switched off. These estimates use different testing conditions, so I would not compare the Battery Saver numbers too literally, but the 45mm Pixel is clearly positioned as the longer-lasting watch.

Charging widens that difference. Pixel Watch 5 reaches around 50% in 15 minutes and takes roughly 45 minutes for a full charge on the 41mm model or 60 minutes on the 45mm version. Samsung quotes 80 minutes for the 40mm Galaxy Watch 9 and 90 minutes for the 44mm watch.

Neither watch turns Wear OS into a multi-day battery platform in normal use. But if I were choosing specifically for battery life, the 45mm Pixel Watch 5 is the more convincing option.

GPS is no longer a reason to automatically pick Samsung

Both watches now support dual-frequency positioning, so the basic GPS specification is effectively level. Samsung uses L1 and L5 GPS, while Pixel Watch 5 supports dual-frequency GPS across GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, BeiDou and QZSS.

Google is doing more than simply adding another frequency, however. Pixel Watch 5 uses technology derived from Google Maps to model how satellite signals travel through 3D buildings, while weather-station data helps compensate for atmospheric conditions. Google claims this makes route tracking twice as accurate as previous Pixel Watch generations in difficult environments.

The underlying approach is interesting. Google is increasingly treating GPS accuracy as a software and data-processing problem rather than simply a question of GNSS hardware.

Samsung has its own advantage on the training side. Fitness Index brings together VO2 max, BIA, heart rate, steps and activity data, Running Coach builds adaptive programmes lasting three to five weeks, and Daily Cardio Load looks at recent physical strain to help balance training and recovery.

Google has pushed further into strength training this year. Pixel Watch 5 can guide workouts, record weights and reps, manage rest periods and work with Google Health Coach to create customised strength sessions and recovery recommendations. Some of the more advanced Health Coach functionality requires a Google Health Premium subscription, which is worth factoring into the comparison.

Health tracking is where the philosophies really split

The core sensor lists overlap considerably. Both watches cover optical heart rate, ECG, SpO2, skin temperature and the usual motion sensors, but Samsung and Google then head in different directions.

Samsung has the broader measurement toolkit. Its BioActive sensor includes bioelectrical impedance analysis, allowing Galaxy Watch 9 to estimate body composition directly from the wrist. Samsung also offers Antioxidant Index, Energy Score, Vitals, Heart Health Score and its increasingly extensive sleep suite.

Galaxy Watch 9 can estimate morning blood pressure after calibration against a conventional cuff, and Samsung also offers FDA-cleared detection of signs associated with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in supported markets. As usual with Samsung’s more advanced health features, availability varies by country and some functions depend on using Samsung Health Monitor and a compatible Galaxy phone.

Google does not offer body composition, but Pixel Watch 5 has a cEDA sensor for skin-conductance based body-response tracking. It also introduces Google’s Health Guardian layer, with monthly reports covering blood pressure trends, sleep breathing quality and insulin resistance trends.

Google Pixel Watch 5

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

Those Google features need careful wording. Pixel Watch 5 is not directly measuring blood pressure or glucose, and the insulin resistance feature is not continuous glucose monitoring. Google describes these as wellness trends rather than clinical readings, with the reports designed to identify changes over time after enough data has accumulated.

Pixel Watch 5 also has the stronger safety features. Google is building on Loss of Pulse Detection and satellite communication with breathing emergency detection, which can identify a severe and persistent fall in oxygen saturation combined with other sensor data and contact emergency services if the wearer becomes unresponsive. The feature is launching first in parts of Europe, so availability remains an important consideration.

Put simply, Galaxy Watch 9 is the more complete health measurement device. Pixel Watch 5 is increasingly about interpreting longer-term patterns and intervening when something appears seriously wrong.

Wear OS is shared but the ecosystems differ

Both watches run Wear OS 7 and both have Gemini, Google Maps, Gmail, Messages, Spotify and the wider Wear OS app catalogue. Samsung adds One UI 9 Watch on top, while Google keeps the interface much closer to its stock Wear OS vision.

That makes the old argument that Pixel Watch is the Google watch and Galaxy Watch is the Samsung watch slightly less useful than it once was. Galaxy Watch 9 still gives you Gemini and Google’s app ecosystem, while Pixel Watch 5 increasingly incorporates Fitbit and Google Health functionality into the same broader platform.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

There are still ecosystem restrictions. Pixel Watch 5 works with most phones running Android 12 or newer, while Galaxy Watch 9 requires Android 13 or newer and at least 1.5GB of memory. Some of Samsung’s health functions work best, or only work, when paired with a Samsung Galaxy phone.

A Galaxy phone owner therefore gets the most complete Watch 9 experience. For someone using a Pixel, Motorola, OnePlus or another Android phone, Pixel Watch 5 is arguably the cleaner choice because you are less likely to run into Samsung-specific feature restrictions.

The post Google Pixel Watch 5 vs Samsung Galaxy Watch 9: Which should you buy appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

IFA runs until September 8 at Messe Berlin, with more than 1,900 brands expected across the wider consumer electronics show. For wearable tech, though, the exhibitor list tells a more interesting story than the overall numbers.

Quite a few big names are missing

Garmin will once again skip IFA, despite the company having plenty going on with its wearable range. Apple is absent as usual, Fitbit will not be there and Huawei doesn’t appear on the list. Polar will also not be there. However – Spiros Andreou, the company’s Head of Global Industry & Technology Partnerships, is speaking at IFA on September 4 in a connected-health/wellness session.

Whoop is another notable omission this time around. That is a change from IFA 2025, when Whoop had a proper stand displaying Whoop 5.0, Whoop MG and its newer apparel range.

This continues a trend we have been seeing for several years. Big wearable launches are increasingly happening at standalone events, where manufacturers do not have to fight thousands of televisions, laptops, washing machines and robot vacuums for attention.

That does not make IFA irrelevant for wearables. It just means you need to know where to look. IFA itself says IFA Next this year will put more emphasis on smart glasses, AI wearables and wearable/ring interfaces. 

Zepp Health could steal the headlines again

Zepp Health will not have a stand inside Messe Berlin, but we expect the company to follow the same approach as recent years and hold a separate event on the opening day of IFA.

It did exactly that last year. The Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro launched in Berlin on the opening day of IFA and ended up being one of the biggest wearable announcements associated with the show.

This year we have a pretty good idea of where at least some of the attention could go. The Amazfit T-Rex Dual Solar has now appeared in several regulatory databases, including filings in Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, the Eurasian Economic Union and most recently the FCC.

An early September reveal looks very plausible. It is not confirmed for IFA week, but the timing would certainly fit with Zepp Health’s usual Berlin launch schedule.

Zepp Health has previously indicated that next-generation Helio hardware is coming in the second half of 2026. Now we did se the Helio Strap Pro launch a month ago, but this space is still worth watching.

Xiaomi might have the most to show

Xiaomi is one of the more interesting names this year. The company has an official IFA 2026 presence, and unlike several of the traditional wearable brands, it has a fairly broad line-up it can bring to Berlin.

The obvious device to watch is the Xiaomi Smart Band 11. It has already moved through regulatory approval in China, Taiwan and the UAE, with filings pointing to both standard and NFC versions.

Earlier Smart Band 11 leaks point to a 1.78-inch AMOLED display, HRV monitoring and a broader sensor package. None of those leaked specifications should be treated as final yet, but the growing pile of certifications suggests the device is getting close.

The Xiaomi Watch S5 should also be on show. The Watch S5 is already available internationally, so IFA will be more about putting Xiaomi’s latest smartwatch in front of European visitors rather than announcing its arrival.

That leaves Smart Band 11 as the more interesting Xiaomi wildcard. If the timing lines up, Berlin would be a very natural place for Xiaomi to give its next fitness band a major European push.

Samsung will be there, but don’t expect another Unpacked

Samsung is confirmed for IFA again, although most of its 2026 wearable hardware has already been unveiled. The Galaxy Watch9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra2 arrived in July, so these should provide most of the wrist-based action in Berlin.

Watch9 brings a new processor and some useful battery improvements, particularly on the smaller model. Ultra2 goes further with an 800mAh battery, thinner body and a brighter display, making it the more substantial hardware update of the two.

The bigger question is the Galaxy Ring. Samsung still has not produced a second generation, and earlier regulatory activity around the 2026 watches arrived without any sign of Galaxy Ring 2.

That does not completely rule out a surprise, but there is very little evidence pointing towards new Samsung ring hardware for Berlin. For now, IFA looks more like a showcase for products Samsung has already launched.

Withings has a couple of things worth watching

Withings will be back at IFA, and there is no convincing evidence yet of a new ScanWatch generation. That makes another flagship smartwatch launch less obvious than it was in some previous years.

The company does have other hardware to show. Withings BodyScan 2 is now available in Europe and the US, giving Withings a substantial new health product to demonstrate on the IFA floor.

RingConn, Ultrahuman and Circular return

Smart rings should once again have a noticeable presence in Berlin. RingConn and Ultrahuman are both confirmed exhibitors, although neither company necessarily needs another new-generation ring right now.

RingConn Gen 3 only arrived this year, bringing vibration alerts, upgraded sensors, Vascular Trend and battery life of up to 14 days. IFA could be more about showing how those vibration features develop through software, particularly with RingConn planning additional alert functionality later this year.

Ultrahuman is in a similar position. Ring PRO launched earlier in 2026 with a larger battery, redesigned internals and a charging case, although shipments have taken longer than originally expected.

Circular is also back at IFA. But we are yet to learn whether they will be presenting a next generation device.

IFA also lists Luna Ring as a 2026 exhibitor. And the company has more than just the Ring Gen 2 now. It unveiled Luna Band at CES 2026, a screenless health tracker very much in the Whoop and Helio Strap category.

And there are other smart ring brands such as MYnextRING, Momax and eIoT. So smart rings should make an interesting showing.

What happened at IFA 2025

Last year’s show gives us a decent idea of what to expect. There were fewer major wearable launches than in IFA’s earlier years, but our IFA 2025 picture gallery still had plenty of hardware to cover.

IFA 2026 looks like it could follow a similar pattern. The traditional smartwatch giants are not exactly queueing up to attend, but Xiaomi, Withings, Samsung and the smart-ring brands give us enough to look at.

The post IFA 2026 preview: Wearables to expect at Europe’s largest tech show appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The hearing test tunes each ear separately

The Hearing Test and Hearing Aid features are accessed through the Galaxy Buds menu in Settings, so there is no separate app to install. The test uses pure-tone audiometry, playing sounds at different frequencies to measure the hearing level of each ear.

Samsung’s screenshots show the results split into left and right ears, complete with average decibel figures and an audiogram covering frequencies from 250Hz to 8kHz. The software then places the result into one of five categories ranging from normal hearing to profound hearing loss.

Once the test is complete, the user can move straight into the Hearing Aid setup. The interface allows volume to be controlled for both earbuds together or adjusted separately, while sound can be picked up from all around or focused towards the front.

There is also a background noise reduction slider. That should be useful in places such as restaurants and busy rooms, where making out a conversation is often harder than simply hearing that someone is speaking.

Samsung says its software uses the NAL-NL2 fitting formula, which is widely used when configuring prescription hearing aids. Noise reduction and beamforming are also used to bring voices into focus while reducing some of the surrounding sound.

Galaxy Buds3 Pro owners are included

Perhaps the best part of the announcement is that Samsung is not keeping the feature exclusive to its newest earbuds. Galaxy Buds3 Pro owners are included alongside the Galaxy Buds4 Pro, potentially adding a substantial new use without requiring another hardware purchase.

The standard Galaxy Buds3 and Galaxy Buds4 are not supported. Samsung also says full functionality requires a compatible Galaxy device running One UI 8 or later, so buyers should not assume the hearing aid mode will work fully when the earbuds are paired with any Bluetooth phone.

The company has offered forms of hearing assistance for several years. A Personal Sound Amplification Product mode arrived on Galaxy Buds+ in 2020, with a later study suggesting the earbuds could help people follow conversations more easily.

A personal sound amplifier is intended to make environmental sounds louder for someone with normal hearing, while an OTC hearing aid is a medical device intended to compensate for hearing loss. We explored that difference in our Olive Smart Ear review, where personalised amplification was already beginning to blur the line between earbuds and dedicated hearing products.

Samsung is not the first major earbud maker to take this step. Apple rSamsung is not the first major earbud maker to take this step. Apple received FDA authorisation for its AirPods Pro 2 hearing aid software in 2024. That makes Samsung’s announcement partly a catch-up move. Still, bringing a comparable option to Galaxy owners matters, particularly because the existing Buds3 Pro will receive it as well.

The post Samsung turns Galaxy Buds3 Pro into FDA-cleared hearing aids appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

There is little doubt over the identity of SM-R391. Samsung’s own FCC documentation repeatedly uses the name “FIT4”, while the current Galaxy Fit3 carries model number SM-R390. The filing received final FCC approval on August 4.

That takes the Galaxy Fit 4 beyond the rumour stage. Samsung has working hardware going through regulatory testing, and some of the documents give us a surprisingly detailed snapshot of what was sitting on the test bench in July.

The test unit looks fairly far along

An interesting detail comes from the EMC report. Samsung submitted hardware marked REV2.0 running software version R391XXU0AZG2. The test lab received the sample on July 15 and carried out its EMC testing on July 20, while Bluetooth testing followed on July 22 and 23.

That does not tell us Samsung has finished the retail hardware, but REV2.0 is at least consistent with a device that has moved beyond an initial engineering prototype. The timing also fits with earlier reports suggesting Samsung could launch the band in the coming months.

The new FCC drawing suggests Samsung is not tearing up the Fit3 design. The back again has a central optical sensor area, two charging contacts and release mechanisms for the straps. There is also a physical button along the edge. From what we can see, this looks much more like an evolution of the Fit3 than another big design shift.

That is probably sensible. The Fit3 already moved the range much closer to smartwatch territory with its large 1.6-inch AMOLED display and aluminium body. Its basic hardware still holds up reasonably well against inexpensive fitness bands from Xiaomi, Huawei and others.

Samsung is testing four charging bases

The deeper test reports also reveal something that has not received much attention elsewhere. The Fit 4 sample uses an EVE battery carrying model number HQ-8339EV. Unfortunately, there is no capacity listed, so we cannot yet tell whether Samsung has increased the 208mAh battery used in the Fit3.

Samsung also supplied four different charging bases for certification testing. They come from Shenzhen Pomagtor Precision Electronics, Huizhou Juwei Electronics, Saibao Jiangxi Industrial and Huizhou Washin Electronics. The report says every charging base was tested, although only the worst-case result was recorded.

That probably does not point to four different chargers being sold with the band. A more likely explanation is that Samsung has qualified several suppliers to manufacture the same accessory. Still, it gives us a little more evidence that the Fit 4 supply chain is already taking shape.

For comparison, the current Galaxy Fit3 has a 208mAh battery rated for up to 13 days. Battery capacity is therefore one of the specifications worth watching when more Fit 4 documentation appears.

Bluetooth 5.4 is confirmed but GPS is not settled

The main wireless upgrade is straightforward. Samsung’s SAR report lists Bluetooth 5.4 with BR/EDR and Bluetooth Low Energy support across the 2.4GHz band. The Fit3 uses Bluetooth 5.3.

There is no FCC evidence of Wi-Fi, NFC, LTE or UWB. All of the transmitting radios covered by the filing operate between 2402 and 2480MHz, so Samsung appears to be keeping the Fit 4 on the simpler side of its wearable range.

GPS is a different story. Some coverage of the filing has stated that the Galaxy Fit 4 does not have built-in GPS, but the FCC documents do not actually establish that. The absence of a GNSS transmitter listing is not enough to rule it out because satellite positioning is receive-only.

That leaves GPS as one of the biggest unanswered questions. The Fit3 relies on a connected phone for positioning, while some rival fitness bands now offer standalone satellite tracking. Adding it would make Fit 4 much more of an upgrad

More details are being kept under wraps

There is plenty Samsung is not ready to show yet. The external photos, internal photos, test setup images, quick-start guide and full user manual have all been granted short-term confidentiality. The FCC database currently lists January 31, 2027 as their public availability date. Samsung’s confidentiality request specifies a 180-day period from the equipment authorization grant.

That date should not be taken as a release date. Manufacturers regularly request the maximum confidentiality window and can have the material released sooner when a product launches.

For now, the FCC filing gives us a useful halfway point. The Galaxy Fit 4 is real, Samsung has REV2.0 hardware under test, Bluetooth 5.4 is confirmed and production components such as the EVE battery and several charging-base suppliers have already been documented. What we still do not know is arguably more interesting, particularly battery capacity, standalone GPS, sensor upgrades and whether Samsung plans to keep the Fit3’s aggressive pricing.

The post Samsung Galaxy Fit 4 leak reveals Bluetooth upgrade but leaves GPS unanswered appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Samsung Galaxy Watch9 brings a larger battery, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite processor and a longer software-support period. It is the better watch for most new buyers, but the size you choose makes a surprisingly large difference to the value of the upgrade.

The 40mm Watch9 receives a substantial 20% battery-capacity increase over its Watch8 equivalent. The 44mm version gains just 10mAh, making it much harder to recommend to someone who already owns the previous model.

There is also the Galaxy Watch8 Classic to consider. It retains Samsung’s physical rotating bezel, offers twice the storage of the standard watches and has the same 445mAh battery as the larger Watch9, although it is considerably heavier and still uses Samsung’s older Exynos processor.

Galaxy Watch 9 vs 8 vs 8 Classic specifications

Samsung has changed the processor and battery, but much of the surrounding hardware is familiar. The displays, dimensions, durability ratings, storage capacity and health sensor categories are effectively unchanged between Watch9 and the standard Watch8.

On mobile, swipe across the table to see both watches.

Feature	Galaxy Watch9	Galaxy Watch8	Galaxy Watch8 Classic
Product
Case sizes	40mm and 44mm	40mm and 44mm	46mm
Dimensions	42.7 x 40.4 x 8.6mm 46.0 x 43.7 x 8.6mm	42.7 x 40.4 x 8.6mm 46.0 x 43.7 x 8.6mm	46.4 x 46.0 x 10.6mm
Weight without strap	31.5g or 34g	30g or 33.8g	63.5g
Case and controls	Armor Aluminum, two buttons	Armor Aluminum, two buttons	Stainless steel, rotating bezel and three buttons
Display	1.34 inches, 438 x 438 1.47 inches, 480 x 480	1.34 inches, 438 x 438 1.47 inches, 480 x 480	1.34 inches, 438 x 438
Peak brightness	3,000 nits	3,000 nits	3,000 nits
Processor	Snapdragon Wear Elite, 3nm	Exynos W1000, 3nm	Exynos W1000, 3nm
RAM and storage	2GB and 32GB	2GB and 32GB	2GB and 64GB
Battery	390mAh or 445mAh	325mAh or 435mAh	445mAh
Official battery estimate	Up to 30 hours with always-on display	Up to 30 hours with always-on display	Up to 30 hours with always-on display
GPS	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5
Durability	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H	5ATM, IP68 and MIL-STD-810H
Launch software	Wear OS 7 with One UI Watch 9	Wear OS 6 with One UI Watch 8	Wear OS 6 with One UI Watch 8
Expected support	Five major Wear OS upgrades, security support into 2031	Expected support into 2029	Expected support into 2029
Band compatibility	Compatible with Watch8 Dynamic Lug bands	Compatible with Watch9 bands	Compatible with Watch8 and Watch9 Dynamic Lug bands
US launch price, Bluetooth	$379.99 or $409.99	$349.99 or $379.99	$499.99
US launch price, LTE	$429.99 or $459.99	$399.99 or $429.99	$549.99

The battery upgrade depends on the size

Battery capacity is the most important difference, but the headline requires some qualification. Samsung has not improved the two Watch9 sizes by anything close to the same amount.

The 40mm Watch9 moves from 325mAh to 390mAh. That is an exact 20% increase and should provide more breathing room for sleep tracking, workouts and notifications on the smaller watch.

The 44mm version rises from 435mAh to 445mAh. That works out to an increase of only 2.3%, which is unlikely to transform how frequently it needs charging.

Most comparisons describe Watch9 as simply having a larger battery. Someone buying the 40mm model, however, benefits more. A 44mm buyer is getting almost the same battery as before.

Samsung still gives the watches a headline estimate of up to 30 hours with the always-on display enabled and 40 hours with it switched off. The larger battery therefore should not be interpreted as a guaranteed 20% improvement in actual runtime.

Early evidence is mixed. A ComputerBild test of the 40mm Watch9 produced a little over 24 hours, despite the larger battery, which was shorter than the publication recorded from its predecessor.

One result cannot describe every combination of settings, workouts and network use. It does show why capacity and endurance should not be treated as interchangeable figures, especially when the new Snapdragon platform may distribute power differently from Samsung’s Exynos chip.

Charging speed has not changed significantly either. Short top-ups remain useful, but Watch9 does not introduce the kind of charging improvement that would alter the daily routine on its own.

Snapdragon Wear Elite is the bigger long-term change

Watch9 replaces Samsung’s Exynos W1000 with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite platform. Both processors are manufactured using a 3nm process, but the Qualcomm chip introduces a different architecture and low-power system.

The Exynos W1000 already makes Watch8 feel responsive during ordinary use. Notifications, Samsung Health, maps and most apps do not suddenly become difficult simply because a newer processor exists.

Watch9 should still have advantages in app loading, voice processing and maintaining performance as Wear OS becomes more demanding. The new platform may also provide Samsung with more room for future on-device health analysis and Gemini features.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

Battery efficiency is less certain. The Snapdragon name alone does not guarantee longer endurance, particularly when Samsung’s official runtime estimate has remained unchanged and the first independent results have not shown a clear breakthrough.

The stronger argument for the new chip is longevity. Samsung is promising five major Wear OS upgrades for Watch9, with security support expected to continue into 2031, giving it a longer runway than the Watch8 generation.

For someone who replaces a watch every two or three years, that difference may have little practical value. Anyone planning to keep it for four or five years has a better reason to pay extra for Watch9.

Watch8 Classic remains a very different proposition

Galaxy Watch8 Classic is not simply a larger Watch8. Its stainless-steel case, physical rotating bezel, additional Quick Button and 64GB of storage give it a distinct identity.

The rotating bezel remains one of Samsung’s best watch controls. It makes scrolling through menus and notifications easy without covering the screen with a finger, and it gives the Classic a more conventional watch-like feel.

There are substantial compromises. The Classic weighs 63.5g before the strap is attached, compared with 34g for the 44mm Watch9, and its 10.6mm case is noticeably thicker than the 8.6mm standard models.

It also uses a 1.34-inch display, the same screen size as the 40mm watches, despite having a 46mm case. The physical bezel occupies space that Samsung uses for additional display area on the 44mm Watch9 and Watch8.

Battery capacity is more competitive. Watch8 Classic has a 445mAh cell, matching the larger Watch9 and slightly exceeding the 44mm Watch8.

Storage doubles from 32GB to 64GB, which is helpful for offline music, apps and downloaded media. It retains the Exynos W1000, however, so buyers do not receive Watch9’s new processor or extended support period.

At its $499.99 starting price, the Classic is difficult to recommend purely on specifications. It makes the most sense when the rotating bezel and stainless-steel construction are features someone actively wants, rather than extras that merely sound useful.

The design has barely changed

Samsung has retained the cushion-shaped case introduced with Watch8. The circular display sits inside a softly squared outer frame, producing a design that falls somewhere between a conventional Galaxy Watch and the larger Ultra.

Watch9 uses the same 40mm and 44mm sizes and the same 8.6mm thickness. The case is slightly heavier, rising from 30g to 31.5g at 40mm and from 33.8g to 34g at 44mm.

Those increases are too small to affect comfort. Both standard watches remain much easier to wear overnight than Watch8 Classic or either Galaxy Watch Ultra generation.

The design continues to divide opinion. Some will find the cushion shape more distinctive than Samsung’s older fully circular cases, while others will see little reason to replace a Watch8 with something that looks almost identical.

Watch9 does introduce Cream as a 40mm color, while the larger version is available in Graphite and Silver. Color availability is a minor buying consideration rather than an upgrade reason.

The displays are effectively identical

Watch9 retains the same display sizes, resolutions and claimed 3,000-nit peak brightness as Watch8. The 40mm models use a 1.34-inch, 438 x 438 panel, while the 44mm versions use a 1.47-inch, 480 x 480 panel.

Both generations use Super AMOLED panels protected by sapphire crystal. Visibility, sharpness and always-on watch faces should therefore look very similar.

The Classic also reaches 3,000 nits, but its physical bezel limits it to the smaller 1.34-inch display. Buyers are trading screen area for tactile control rather than gaining both.

The unchanged displays reinforce the broader upgrade picture. Watch9 improves the platform underneath the screen, but it does not provide a visibly larger, brighter or sharper interface.

Health tracking is mostly about interpretation

Samsung lists the same core sensor categories across all three watches. These include optical heart-rate monitoring, ECG, bioelectrical impedance analysis, blood oxygen, temperature, accelerometer, gyroscope, barometer, compass and ambient light sensing.

Watch9 launches with additional tools including Vitals, Heart Health Score and Fitness Index. These features organize and interpret signals the watch is already collecting rather than measuring an entirely new type of health data.

Vitals builds a baseline using overnight measurements and looks for changes from someone’s usual patterns. Heart Health Score and Fitness Index apply further analysis to existing cardiovascular and activity information.

That may make the presentation more useful, but it is not a completely new health-sensing platform. Some of these software features are also expected to reach older watches through Samsung Health updates, although availability and timing may differ by device and region.

Watch8 already provides Running Coach, Energy Score, sleep coaching, Bedtime Guidance, Antioxidant Index and Vascular Load in supported markets. The everyday health experience is therefore much closer than Samsung’s Watch9 feature list initially suggests.

The usual restrictions remain. Some health functions require a compatible Samsung Galaxy phone, and ECG, blood-pressure and sleep-apnea features depend on local regulatory approval.

GPS and fitness hardware have not moved far

All three models support dual-frequency L1 and L5 GPS. This was already one of Watch8’s more valuable improvements, particularly when tracking through built-up areas or beneath heavy tree cover.

Watch9 does not introduce a clearly different GPS system in Samsung’s specifications. Any change in route accuracy or power consumption would therefore be more likely to come from software, antenna tuning or the Snapdragon platform than a new headline capability.

The same applies to workout tracking. Samsung Health remains well suited to general fitness, running plans, sleep tracking and daily activity, but Watch9 does not suddenly turn the standard Galaxy Watch into a specialist endurance device.

Samsung Galaxy Watch 9

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

The more revealing buying debate continues to be Samsung against Garmin rather than Watch9 against Watch8. Samsung is stronger for apps, calls, messaging and everyday phone integration, while specialist sports watches generally provide longer endurance and deeper training analysis.

Watch8 bands still fit Watch9

Samsung has retained the Dynamic Lug System used by the Watch8 generation. Compatible Watch8 and Watch8 Classic bands can therefore be used with Watch9, and Samsung is selling newer bands as compatible across the three models.

That removes a potential hidden upgrade cost for existing owners. Someone who has already bought several Watch8 bands does not need to replace the collection when moving to Watch9.

Galaxy Watch Ultra bands use a different connection and are not interchangeable. The compatibility applies to the standard Watch8, Watch8 Classic and Watch9 Dynamic Lug families.

Price may matter more than the specifications

Galaxy Watch9 starts at $379.99 for the 40mm Bluetooth model and $409.99 at 44mm. Adding LTE increases either price by $50.

Watch8 launched at $349.99 and $379.99, making Watch9 officially $30 more expensive at each size. That is a reasonable premium for the Snapdragon processor, larger 40mm battery and longer support period.

Retail discounts create a different comparison. Samsung has already listed Watch8 from around $299.99, and third-party prices may fall further as retailers clear older stock.

At 40mm, paying around $50 to $80 more for Watch9 is defensible because the battery increase is substantial. Once the difference passes roughly $100, Watch8 becomes the stronger value unless long-term software support is especially important.

At 44mm, the older watch becomes attractive sooner. Watch9 adds just 10mAh, so the processor and support period must do most of the work when justifying the extra cost.

Watch8 Classic starts at $499.99, or $549.99 with LTE. At that price, it should be chosen for its bezel, steel construction and 64GB storage rather than on the assumption that “Classic” means universally better.

Trade-in offers can, of course, overturn any of these calculations. So they are worth checking out.

Samsung’s standard watches are not the only models to receive a major update this year. Our full Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra comparison looks at the larger battery, faster charging, slimmer case and new Snapdragon processor, as well as whether the changes justify upgrading from the original Ultra.

The post Samsung Galaxy Watch9 vs Watch8: How they stack up appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 improves the original with a 35% larger battery, much faster charging, a slimmer body, a brighter display and Qualcomm’s new Snapdragon Wear Elite chip. It is clearly the better watch for a new buyer, but the case for upgrading from an existing Galaxy Watch Ultra is far less convincing.

Worth clarifying, there are actually two original Ultra models

Samsung launched the first Galaxy Watch Ultra in 2024, then refreshed it in 2025. The second release added Titanium Blue and increased storage from 32GB to 64GB, but the processor, battery, display and sensor selection remained virtually unchanged.

This distinction is important when comparing storage. Ultra 2 doubles the capacity of the 2024 model, but it offers no storage advantage over the 2025 Ultra, which already comes with 64GB.

For most of this comparison, the 2024 and 2025 versions can be treated as the same watch. Where storage and colour options differ, the model year needs to be taken into account.

With that in mind, let’s continue.

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra specifications

The headline specifications point to a substantial hardware update, but not every difference will be equally noticeable in daily use. The larger battery, faster charging and slimmer case should have the clearest impact, while the new processor and brighter display are more likely to feel like useful refinements.

On mobile, swipe across the table to see both watches.

Feature	Galaxy Watch Ultra 2	Galaxy Watch Ultra
Product image
Case size	47.4 × 47.1 × 10.7mm	47.1 × 47.4 × 12.1mm
Weight without strap	61.5g	60.5g
Display	1.52-inch AMOLED, 498 × 498	1.47-inch AMOLED, 480 × 480
Peak brightness	5,000 nits	3,000 nits
Processor	Snapdragon Wear Elite	Exynos W1000
RAM	2GB	2GB
Storage	64GB	32GB in 2024, 64GB in 2025
Battery	800mAh	590mAh
Fast charging	Up to 40% in around 30 minutes	Not supported
GPS	Dual-frequency L1 and L5	Dual-frequency L1 and L5
Water protection	10ATM and IP69K	10ATM and IP68
Diving certification	EN13319	None
US launch price	$699	$649 for the 2025 model

It looks the same but should wear better

From the front, Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 could easily be mistaken for the original. Samsung has retained the 47mm cushion-shaped titanium case, circular display, three physical buttons and distinctive orange Quick Button.

The significant change appears when the watches are viewed from the side. Ultra 2 measures 10.7mm thick, down from 12.1mm, which works out to a reduction of around 12%.

That does not turn it into a small watch. The width and height have barely changed, so it will still dominate a smaller wrist and may feel excessive for sleep tracking.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

It should, however, sit closer to the skin and catch sleeves less often. The redesigned Marine Band is also softer and thinner, with an Air Pocket structure intended to help moisture escape.

One detail that has already been reported incorrectly is the weight. Ultra 2 weighs 61.5g without its strap, one gram more than the original, so the watch itself is not lighter.

Samsung’s lighter band may reduce the total weight on the wrist, but that is not the same as making the case lighter. Existing Ultra bands remain compatible, so owners do not need to replace their current collection.

Battery is the biggest reason to choose Ultra 2

Samsung has increased capacity from 590mAh to 800mAh, a jump of around 35.6%. That is easily the largest practical upgrade and the main reason some existing owners are considering replacing their watches.

The official runtime figures create a slightly odd situation. Samsung advertises up to 60 hours with the always-on display enabled and up to 80 hours with it switched off, even though the battery is substantially larger.

As we noted in our earlier look at Samsung’s Ultra 2 battery claims, the extra capacity does not automatically translate into a similar increase in advertised endurance. The brighter display, new processor, LTE modem, health processing and outdoor features may use some of that additional energy.

There should still be more breathing room during normal use. The larger cell should be particularly helpful during GPS workouts, LTE sessions and overnight tracking, where the original Ultra’s battery can feel more restrictive.

The difference may also feel larger for someone upgrading from a 2024 Ultra. A battery that has already gone through two years of regular charging will no longer perform like a new 590mAh cell, so the real comparison may be 800mAh against an ageing battery rather than the original factory specification.

Fast charging could have an equally noticeable effect. Ultra 2 can reach up to 40% in around 30 minutes, while Ultra has slower charging, with no equivalent 30-minute claim.

That makes it easier to top up the watch while showering, having breakfast or getting ready for bed. It also reduces the usual conflict between charging and collecting overnight sleep data.

Snapdragon Wear Elite is the unknown quantity

Ultra 2 moves from Samsung’s Exynos W1000 to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear Elite. Both use a 3nm manufacturing process, but Qualcomm’s platform introduces a different CPU layout, on-device AI hardware and a redesigned low-power system.

Samsung says apps launch faster and interactions feel smoother. That sounds good, although the Exynos W1000 is already quick enough for normal watch use and early demonstrations do not show an enormous difference.

Efficiency could be more important than raw speed. LTE, GPS, background health tracking and the always-on display place a steady load on a smartwatch, so even modest power savings could improve endurance.

The new chip may also give Samsung more headroom for future health analysis and AI features. We previously looked at Samsung’s switch to Snapdragon Wear Elite, but the final judgement will depend on battery tests, heat, GPS performance and long-term software support.

The display is larger and much brighter

Samsung has reduced the bezel slightly, increasing the screen from 1.47 to 1.52 inches without making the case wider. Resolution moves from 480 x 480 to 498 x 498 pixels, so the difference in sharpness will probably be difficult to spot.

Brightness rises from 3,000 to 5,000 nits. That should improve visibility under strong sunlight and may be useful when glancing at workout data outdoors.

There is some small print behind the 5,000-nit figure, though. Samsung describes it as localised peak brightness under high ambient light, so the entire display will not necessarily sit at that level.

The original Ultra already has a bright screen, which means this is more refinement than rescue operation. It should be most noticeable on exposed trails, bright summer runs and underwater.

Health tracking is not a complete sensor overhaul

Samsung has packed broadly the same sensor categories on both watches, including its BioActive package, skin temperature, accelerometer, barometer, gyroscope, compass and ambient light sensor. Ultra 2 still supports ECG, body composition, blood oxygen, heart rate and the usual Samsung Health tools.

The company describes the BioActive sensor as upgraded on the Ultra 2 product page, but it does not provide much detail on what has changed internally. The closer fit due to the thinner case may contribute to better readings.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2

Check the latest price and availability on Amazon.

View on Amazon

Many of Samsung’s newer health tools are software-led rather than dependent on new hardware. Vitals, Heart Health Score, Fitness Index and other features use signals that Galaxy Watches were already collecting.

Several of these tools were announced before Ultra 2 and are part of Samsung’s wider health platform. Our earlier coverage of the new Galaxy Watch health features explains how Vitals builds a personal baseline from overnight heart rate, HRV, breathing, temperature and blood oxygen.

Diving is the clearest new capability

Both watches carry a 10ATM rating, but Ultra 2 steps up from IP68 to IP69K and gains EN13319 certification. The IP69K rating adds protection against high-pressure and high-temperature water jets, while EN13319 covers depth and time instruments used for diving.

Ultra 2 can automatically show depth, dive duration and water temperature after entering the water. Samsung rates it for diving down to 40 metres, while more advanced software developed with Mares is scheduled to arrive later in 2026.

This is a real functional difference rather than a specification created for marketing. Anyone who plans to use a Galaxy Watch for recreational diving should choose Ultra 2.

For everyone else, IP69K is reassuring but unlikely to change daily use. The original Ultra is already rated to 10ATM, so Ultra 2 does not increase the headline pressure rating beyond 100 metres.

Trail running gets more attention

Ultra 2 introduces a dedicated Trail Run mode with elevation, climbing progress and terrain-related information. It also adds hydration guidance that estimates sweat loss relative to body weight and suggests when to drink.

This does not mean the watch directly measures hydration or sweat composition. It uses workout and personal data to estimate fluid loss, which can still be useful but should not be confused with a new hydration sensor.

Samsung also retains GPX navigation, dual-frequency GPS and climbing guidance. Those features make Ultra 2 a more credible outdoor watch, especially when combined with the larger battery.

It still approaches the category as a smartwatch first. Garmin and Coros offer deeper navigation, recovery and training systems, while Samsung remains stronger for apps, calls, messaging and integration with a Galaxy phone.

That same division appears repeatedly in owner discussions. People interested mainly in training continue to look towards Garmin, while those who want a watch that can replace more phone functions tend to favour Samsung.

Price could decide the comparison

Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 starts at $699 in the US, while the 2025 Ultra launched at $649. A $50 increase looks reasonable considering the upgrades.

The calculation changes once retailers discount the older model. If the price gap reaches several hundred dollars, the original Ultra begins to look much more attractive.

Existing owners are looking at the decision in much the same way. Many appear willing to upgrade only when trade-in offers bring the cost down substantially, while others see no point paying again for a watch that looks and behaves much like the one already on their wrist.

That is probably the right way to approach it. Ultra 2 is better hardware, but the value of those improvements depends heavily on what someone already owns and what the upgrade actually costs.

Buyers who do not need the Ultra’s larger case and outdoor focus should also look at our Samsung Galaxy Watch9 vs Watch8 comparison. It covers the battery changes, Snapdragon Wear Elite processor and whether the standard Watch9 offers enough to justify upgrading from Watch8.

The post Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Ultra: All the differences explained appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

That does not mean the extra capacity has gone to waste. It does, however, leave Samsung with an obvious question to answer when the first independent battery tests arrive.

The larger battery comes with a catch

The previous Galaxy Watch Ultra used a 590mAh battery, so moving to 800mAh is a substantial change. Samsung has somehow fitted that larger cell inside a 10.7mm case, down from 12.1mm, while also expanding the display slightly to 1.52 inches.

Samsung’s move to the new Snapdragon Wear Elite processor should also improve efficiency. Qualcomm previously claimed its 3nm platform could extend usage by around 30% compared with the preceding Snapdragon generation.

Put those changes together and you might expect a noticeable increase in Samsung’s advertised runtime. Instead, the company is once again quoting up to 100 hours in power saving mode and 48 hours while tracking exercise with power saving enabled.

Galaxy Watch owners picked up on that almost immediately. The main question in early discussions was what the extra 210mAh is doing if the published endurance figures have not increased.

One possible answer is the display. Ultra2 can reach a claimed 5,000 nits under strong ambient light, up from 3,000 nits, while the slightly larger panel also has more pixels. Samsung may have used some of the added capacity to support that screen without reducing battery life.

The processor, new health tools and expanded sports tracking could also increase power demands. Still, an 800mAh smartwatch battery is unusually large, so it will be interesting to see whether Samsung is simply being conservative with its estimates.

A stronger watch with a familiar shape

Ultra2 adds more than a larger battery. It now supports Trail Run tracking with elevation, climbing progress and terrain information, while Nutrition Alert uses estimated sweat loss to provide hydration guidance during activities.

Samsung has also pushed the watch further into diving territory. Ultra2 carries IP69K, 10ATM and EN13319 ratings, and it can automatically show depth, dive time and water temperature. A more advanced diving app developed with Mares is due later this year.

Storage doubles from 32GB to 64GB, while Bluetooth moves to version 6.0. These are useful additions, particularly for someone buying their first Galaxy Watch Ultra.

The difficulty is that Ultra2 still looks very similar to the previous models. That became another recurring theme among existing owners, alongside disappointment with the initial trade-in offers available in some markets.

Many people said they would keep their 2024 Ultra for another year. Others questioned why Samsung appeared to value the 2024 and 2025 versions similarly when calculating trade-ins, although launch-day offers can change quickly.

That reaction does not make Ultra2 a weak product. It suggests Samsung has made a better Ultra for new buyers, rather than creating a compelling reason to replace a recent one.

Watch9 gets more subtle improvements

The regular Galaxy Watch9 may have the cleaner everyday story. It comes in 40mm and 44mm sizes, uses the same Snapdragon Wear Elite processor and reaches 3,000 nits of brightness.

The smaller version receives the more useful battery increase, moving from 325mAh on the Watch8 to 390mAh. Samsung has kept the case at 8.6mm thick, which should make it a more practical option for smaller wrists without sacrificing comfort. The larger model moves from 435mAh to 445mAh, so its improvement will depend more heavily on processor efficiency.

Many health features are not exclusive

Samsung is also introducing Vitals, Heart Health Score, Daily Cardio Load, Fitness Index and hearing protection tools. The company continues to push the Galaxy Watch as a device that interprets health data rather than simply collecting it.

Several of these features will also reach older models through One UI 9 Watch. Daily Cardio Load and Fitness Index, for example, will work with the Galaxy Watch7 and newer devices once they receive the software.

That leaves hardware as the main reason to buy this generation. Ultra2 offers the biggest specification jump, but the 40mm Watch9 may deliver the improvement that more people notice every day.

Galaxy Watch9 starts at £349, which is £30 more than last year’s model. Even so, the smaller version finally gets a battery that looks better suited to sleep tracking, workouts and normal smartwatch use without making the watch noticeably bulkier.

The post Samsung’s Ultra2 battery upgrade comes with an awkward catch appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The AI toggle comes with a heavy warning

As first reported by How-To-Geek, the setting appears inside Samsung Health’s privacy controls under the label “Consent to the use of health data for AI training and modeling.” It sits alongside separate permissions covering other data. Some Samsung Health users are finding the AI training consent switched on after accepting the app’s latest privacy notice.

On the surface, this looks like a normal opt-in control. Users can move the switch off when they do not want their health information used to develop Samsung’s AI systems.

The next screen changes the picture. After the consent is withdrawn, Samsung Health displays a warning saying the user will no longer be able to sync health data with their Samsung account!

It also states that health data will be deleted unless Samsung must retain it under applicable law. Any legally retained information will then be erased when the required retention period ends.

So this is not really just a simple AI toggle. You can say no to Samsung using your data for AI training, but you may also lose cloud syncing and some of your stored health history. Not good.

The exact process may depend on where you live and which privacy rules apply. Users in other regions may see different wording, a separate consent process or no AI training switch at all. Samsung does not make those regional differences particularly clear inside the app.

Some important details remain unclear

The warning is still pretty vague. It does not say whether only data stored on Samsung’s servers will be deleted or whether anything saved locally in Samsung Health could disappear too. It also leaves open the question of which tracking features still work without account sync.

That is not a small detail for long-time Galaxy Watch users. Samsung Health can hold years of activity, sleep, heart rate and body composition data, along with medication details, health records and cycle tracking information.

Samsung’s US consumer health privacy statement says users can withdraw consent where the law allows it. Once they do, Samsung should stop the related collection, use and sharing of their health data. The app also includes options to download or erase personal information.

Downloading data first looks sensible

Anyone planning to withdraw consent should download a copy of their Samsung Health information before confirming the change. The option appears in Samsung Health under Settings, followed by Download personal data.

The downloaded archive gives users some protection if the withdrawal process removes their synced history. It also provides a clearer picture of what Samsung Health has stored before the account connection changes.

The larger problem is not that Samsung asks for permission to train AI. A separate toggle is better than hiding that use inside a general privacy policy.

The problem is the apparent connection between declining AI training and losing cloud syncing or stored data. Consent can technically remain optional while still becoming difficult to refuse in practice.

The timing is handy, with Galaxy Unpacked set for July 22. Samsung is expected to show off new Galaxy Watches and more health AI, so this privacy question may soon get even bigger.

The post Samsung Health users face an awkward choice over AI training appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.