The original UnaliWear complaint was all about smartwatch fall detection. The USITC opened an investigation in January 2026 after the company claimed that watches from Apple, Google, Samsung and Garmin infringed two of its patents.

Not an extension

The latest complaint is a separate action filed on September 21 under docket DN 3937. Samsung, Google and Garmin are back on the list, but Apple is nowhere to be seen this time.

There is another notable difference. The US International Trade Commission’s receipt notice describes the new case as covering “wearable activity and health monitoring devices and systems containing same,” which sounds much broader than the fall-detection wording used in the first investigation.

UnaliWear wants import restrictions and cease-and-desist orders covering products it believes infringe its intellectual property. Unfortunately, the Federal Register notice published on September 24 does not identify the patents, patent claims or products involved. And the USITC has not yet decided whether to open a formal investigation.

Apple’s absence is the interesting part

The first case cast a wider net. That investigation focuses on electronic watches capable of detecting when a wearer has fallen. The official institution notice identifies US patents 10,051,410 and 10,687,193, while the case remains pending before an administrative law judge. 

This time, Apple has disappeared from the respondent list. The omission could mean the new allegations concern technology or products that differ from Apple’s implementation, or it could reflect a separate legal strategy, but the public notices do not provide enough evidence to choose between those explanations.

It is possible the new dispute extends beyond fall detection. But we do not know for sure. Until the public complaint reveals the asserted patents and accused features, the broader title remains a clue rather than a conclusion.

No wearable faces a ban yet

Import-ban language tends to make these cases sound more immediate than they are. The Commission must first decide whether to institute an investigation, and any case it opens would then move through evidence, claim interpretation and an initial determination before reaching a possible remedy.

There is also no confirmed product list. Garmin recently completed its Venu 4 fall-detection rollout, but nothing in the new notice connects the Venu 4, its version 18.30 update or any other named Garmin device to DN 3937.

The same caution applies to Google and Samsung. Their presence in the complaint makes the filing relevant to Pixel Watch and Galaxy Watch owners, but it does not establish that every watch, or any specific watch, uses the technology UnaliWear says infringes its rights.

The next real update to this story will come when the USITC decides if it will formally institute an investigation. Hopefully then it will publish enough detail to identify the patents, products and health features at the centre of the dispute.

The post Samsung, Google and Garmin face a new US import ban threat appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

We spotted the Galaxy Watch9 Classic in a Russian regulatory declaration last week. At first glance, the obvious explanation was that Samsung had planned the watch, changed its mind and left the name sitting in some old paperwork.

The timing makes that explanation less tidy. The document was not registered before Samsung unveiled its 2026 watches, it appeared afterwards.

The filing came after the Watch9 launch

Samsung unveiled the Galaxy Watch9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra2 on July 22. There was no Galaxy Watch9 Classic, despite the Classic name having already appeared in the wider regulatory trail around Samsung’s smartwatch lineup.

Then, on August 14, a new Russian Declaration of Conformity was registered. The document explicitly lists Galaxy Watch9, Galaxy Watch9 Classic and Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 together as smartwatches.

That puts the registration roughly three weeks after Samsung had already shown us its 2026 smartwatch lineup. The timing is what makes this more interesting than a forgotten pre-launch reference.

If the declaration had been registered months before Unpacked, it would be easy enough to dismiss the Watch9 Classic as a product Samsung considered and later cancelled. But someone was still filing paperwork containing that exact name after the Watch9 and Ultra2 were already official.

It could still be a cancelled watch

This does not definitely prove Samsung is preparing a Galaxy Watch9 Classic for release. Regulatory documents can include products that never make it to shops, so the filing alone is not enough to treat the watch as confirmed.

But there is the other possibility is that Samsung never intended the Watch9 Classic to arrive alongside the standard Watch9. A later release would explain why the name remained active in regulatory paperwork without appearing at the July event.

That is why the Galaxy Watch9 Classic remains a product to watch rather than something we can say is definitely coming. The filing gives us the name, but it does not give us a release date or tell us what Samsung intends to do with it.

Samsung’s current lineup does leave an obvious gap, though. The Galaxy Watch9 covers the mainstream end and Ultra2 sits above it, while anyone wanting Samsung’s physical rotating bezel still has to look at the previous-generation Classic.

The post Why did the Galaxy Watch9 Classic appear after Samsung’s launch appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

That matters more now because these scores are popping up everywhere. Garmin, Oura, Whoop and Fitbit already have their own versions, and Apple has now joined them with Readiness on the Apple Watch Series 12 and Ultra 4.

The basic idea sounds sensible enough. Your wearable looks at HRV, resting heart rate, sleep and recent activity, then boils everything down to a number telling you whether to push harder, take it easy or have a rest.

The final score is the weak link

Topol was not questioning whether wearables can measure heart rate, sleep or HRV. He wanted to know whether the final readiness score can actually tell someone what to do next.

If Apple says “Recover” or Garmin reports low Training Readiness, does ignoring that advice lead to a worse workout, slower recovery or a greater risk of injury? Topol could find almost no published research testing those recommendations against real outcomes.

A 2025 review of 14 wearable health scores reached a similar conclusion. Most scores used HRV, resting heart rate, sleep and activity, but few manufacturers had published evidence validating the final number produced from that data.

The strongest example Topol found was a Whoop study involving 389 professional golfers. Players performed around half a stroke better when their Recovery score was 10 points higher, but the study had no control group and could only show an association.

That is the missing piece. Wearables can detect changes in the body, but companies have not yet shown that their scores consistently turn those changes into the right advice.

Your wearable may not be measuring HRV in the clinical sense

The HRV figure used by most readiness scores does not come from an ECG. Watches and smart rings use an optical sensor to track the timing of pulse waves at the skin, producing a closely related measurement called pulse-rate variability.

That distinction does not make the reading useless. Optical measurements can match ECG-derived HRV reasonably well while someone rests or sleeps, but the agreement becomes less reliable when movement, sensor fit, circulation or certain health conditions affect the pulse signal.

The research connecting low HRV with poorer health outcomes mainly uses ECG measurements. We cannot automatically apply those findings to short-term changes recorded by a consumer wearable.

HRV is also affected by exercise, alcohol, illness, stress, sleep and many other factors. A lower reading may show that something has changed, but it cannot tell the wearable what caused that change.

Useful signal or daily instruction

None of this means you should ignore readiness scores. A falling score can draw attention to a combination of poor sleep, higher resting heart rate and lower HRV, particularly when the pattern continues for several days.

The problem is the precision implied by the final number. An Oura score of 80 does not have the same meaning as 80 from another platform, and neither score follows a recognised clinical standard.

Readiness scores therefore make the most sense as personal trend indicators. Several unusual days from the same device deserve more attention than one low score after a poor night, late meal or unusually hard workout.

The sensors may have detected a genuine change in your body. The part that remains uncertain is whether the wearable knows exactly what you should do about it.

The post Garmin, Oura, Whoop and Apple readiness scores face the same evidence gap appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Up to now, the lack of any regulatory trail made it look like Samsung had simply skipped the Classic this generation. This filing suggests there may be a bit more to it.

The Watch9 Classic is named directly

The declaration was registered on August 14, around three weeks after Samsung unveiled the Galaxy Watch9 and Galaxy Watch Ultra2. And it has gone unnoticed.

It lists a long series of Samsung watches, including the Galaxy Watch FE, Watch7, Watch8 and Watch8 Classic. At the end of the list are three 2026 products: Samsung Galaxy Watch9, Samsung Galaxy Watch9 Classic and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2.

Samsung launched the Watch9 and Ultra2 on July 22. The Watch9 Classic did not appear at the event and is still absent from Samsung’s current smartwatch lineup.

That is what makes the filing unusual. This is not a codename that needs interpreting. The declaration uses the Galaxy Watch9 Classic name directly.

We had been watching for the model before launch. In our earlier Galaxy Watch9 coverage, software references suggested Samsung had been working on another Classic model. But regulatory filings were only appearing for the Watch9 and Ultra2.

When Samsung then launched those two watches without a Classic, it looked as though the model had either been cancelled or pushed back. End of story? Maybe not.

The Classic gap is still there

The Russian declaration does not include a specific Samsung model number for the Watch9 Classic. Older devices in the same document are more precise.

The Galaxy Watch8 Classic, for example, appears with its SM-L500 and SM-L505 model numbers. The Watch9, Watch9 Classic and Ultra2 are listed only by product name.

Still, we would not dismiss the filing. We have been following Garmin devices through the same Russian regulator, and several models we spotted there ahead of their official announcements went on to launch shortly afterwards. That does not mean the same will happen with the Watch9 Classic, but it gives these records more weight.

The timing is also notable. The filing arrived after Samsung had already announced its 2026 lineup, rather than months beforehand.

The company currently has the regular Watch9 and the more rugged Ultra2, but neither offers the physical rotating bezel that defines the Classic line. Anyone who wants that design still has to look at the previous-generation Watch8 Classic.

For now, the filing tells us only that the Galaxy Watch9 Classic name exists in regulatory paperwork. It does not tell us when Samsung plans to release it.

Source: RosAccreditation

The post Samsung Galaxy Watch9 Classic appears in filing appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

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.