Galaxy A17's 6-year support sounds huge, but there's a catch

Galaxy A17’s 6-year support sounds huge, but there’s a catch

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Everyone is cheering the Galaxy A17 for bringing 6 years of Android updates to a $199 phone. I’m excited too, but not for the reasons Samsung’s marketing team probably expects.

Long-term software support on cheap hardware sounds like a pure win. However, when you look past the headline, the Galaxy A17 raises some real questions about how useful those extra years will actually be in daily use.

Galaxy A17 specs: the long support meets low-end silicon

Let’s start with the basics, because the support story only makes sense in context of the hardware. The Galaxy A17 lands at $199, sitting near the bottom of Samsung’s A-series lineup.

Under the hood, you’re looking at a MediaTek Helio G88 or similar entry-level chip, not a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 or even a midrange 7-series part. This is an 8-core CPU on a 12nm process, originally built for budget phones a few years back. It’s fine for social apps and light browsing, but it’s already behind today.

Paired with that, you’re getting 4GB of RAM and 64GB or 128GB of storage, plus microSD expansion. On paper this is acceptable for a $199 device, and for now, basic tasks should run smoothly enough with Samsung’s One UI skin on top of Android.

However, fast forward four or five years and this spec sheet looks a lot more fragile. Android keeps adding features, background services get heavier, and apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Chrome grow more demanding over time.

6 years of Android updates on a $199 phone: huge promise, real limits

Here’s the headline: Samsung is promising 4 years of major Android OS upgrades and 6 years of security patches for the Galaxy A17. In other words, a phone launched in January 2025 could, in theory, still be getting security fixes into 2031.

That matches or even beats what some flagships offered just a year or two ago. For a budget device, this is a major shift for Android, especially when you remember that cheap phones used to be lucky to see even one full Android version upgrade.

However, long support on paper only matters if the hardware is still bearable to use. As One UI grows heavier and new Android releases add more background services, that Helio chip and 4GB of RAM will be under real pressure.

In practice, users could see slower app launches, more app reloads, and general jank after a few years. So, while the security support is great for safety, people may upgrade early simply because performance falls off.

Display, battery, and cameras: where the A17 actually makes sense

Now for the good news: Samsung didn’t completely gut the rest of the phone to hit that $199 price with extended support. The Galaxy A17 is expected to ship with a 6.5-inch LCD or entry-level AMOLED at 90Hz. That’s not flagship-level 120Hz AMOLED, but it’s a huge step above the 60Hz panels budget buyers were stuck with not long ago.

The battery is a 5,000mAh cell, which is basically standard for Android now, and charging is reportedly capped around 25W wired. With that low-power chip and a 1080p-ish panel, this should give you all-day endurance and often a second light day.

On the camera side, you get a 50MP main sensor, a basic ultra-wide, and a macro lens thrown in for filler. In daylight, Samsung’s processing should pull decent shots for social media, even if nighttime performance lags far behind a Pixel 8 or Galaxy S24.

So, for the first two or three years, the hardware story isn’t bad. Casual users get solid battery life, a decent screen, and cameras that are good enough for casual snapshots.

One UI updates, Android bloat, and long-term performance

Now we get into the software update story, which is where the Galaxy A17 is trying to stand out. Samsung’s promise here is clear: multiple Android platform updates and security patches for longer than most people keep a budget phone.

However, One UI is not a lightweight skin. Every year it adds new animations, Samsung apps, tie-ins with Galaxy services, and background intelligence features. While those are nice on a Galaxy S24 Ultra with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, they’re a different story on budget silicon.

Over time, each major Android and One UI release tends to increase baseline RAM usage and storage footprint. Even if Samsung tries to optimize for low-end hardware, some bloat is unavoidable simply because modern apps and frameworks expect more resources.

The result is predictable: the Galaxy A17 will very likely feel snappier in year one and year two, then gradually bog down as you move into year three and four. After that, you may still be getting security patches, but you’ll be fighting slowdowns and app reloads.

How Galaxy A17 compares to Pixel and other budget competitors

To really judge the Galaxy A17’s update promise, you have to compare it to what else is on the market. Google’s Pixel 8 offers 7 years of Android updates and security support, but it costs $699 and runs a Tensor G3 chip with 8GB of RAM.

Meanwhile, midrange phones like the Galaxy A35 or Pixel 8a will likely ship with 5–7 years of support and much stronger processors. So, if you can stretch past $199, you might get a device that ages far more gracefully.

On the flip side, most sub-$200 Android phones from brands like Motorola, Nokia, and many Chinese OEMs still live in the 1- to 2-year update world. Against those, the Galaxy A17’s promise looks huge. For parents buying a starter phone or people who keep devices until they break, the extended security coverage is meaningful.

However, you’re still locking into an older chip on a long leash. A slightly more expensive A-series model with a newer Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 or 6 Gen 1 would likely feel smoother in year four, even with the same update policy.

Who should actually buy the Galaxy A17 for its updates?

So, who is the Galaxy A17 really for? First, it suits people on strict budgets who care about security but don’t need blazing speed. Think grandparents, kids, or someone using it as a dedicated travel or backup phone.

Second, it works for users who mainly rely on light apps: messaging, basic browsing, music streaming, and occasional photos. Those tasks will age more gracefully than heavy gaming or pro-level multitasking.

However, if you are the type to install a ton of apps, multitask hard, or keep dozens of Chrome tabs open, this is not your phone. In those cases, a step up in price for better silicon is far more important than an extra year of updates.

Ultimately, blindly chasing the longest update promise on the weakest hardware is a bad strategy. You want a balance: enough power today that the phone still feels usable when year five actually arrives.

The bottom line: smart promise, risky hardware for 6-year life

The Galaxy A17 is a fascinating move from Samsung, and as a signal to the Android world, it’s important. Extended support on a $199 phone shows that long updates are no longer just a flagship perk.

However, the hardware choices make the story more complicated. A low-end MediaTek chip and 4GB of RAM can only carry you so far, no matter how many Android updates Samsung promises. Over time, software creep will push this phone to its limits.

So, if you buy the Galaxy A17, treat those 6 years of Android updates as a safety net, not a guarantee of long-term comfort. For the right buyer, it’s a smart, secure budget move. But for performance-minded users, the long support on the Galaxy A17 is more marketing win than practical upgrade path.

To sum up, the Galaxy A17’s long-term update policy is a big step forward for cheap Android phones, but it doesn’t magically fix low-end hardware. The Galaxy A17 is a good reminder that software support matters, yet hardware still decides how nice those years actually feel.

Pixel 7 Pro's price crash exposes Google's problem

Pixel 7 Pro’s price crash exposes Google’s problem

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

The Pixel 8 Pro costs $999. The Pixel 7 Pro can now be found for less than half that in some markets. When last year’s flagship is suddenly a budget darling, you’re not just looking at a good deal, you’re looking at a company with a value problem.

For buyers, the primary keyword here is simple: Google Pixel 7 Pro. It’s the phone many Android sites are suddenly calling the Pixel to buy in 2026, mostly because its price has fallen off a cliff. However, before everyone rushes to checkout, it’s worth asking why Google’s former flagship is this cheap and what that says about its strategy.

Google Pixel 7 Pro: specs that still hold up in 2026

Let’s start with why this discount frenzy even makes sense. On paper, the Google Pixel 7 Pro is still a seriously capable device. It runs Google’s own Tensor G2 chip, paired with 12GB of RAM and up to 256GB of storage.

The 6.7-inch LTPO OLED panel hits QHD+ resolution with a 120Hz refresh rate. In daily use, scrolling stays smooth, and the panel’s brightness is good enough for harsh daylight, even if newer phones win on peak brightness charts. Meanwhile, stereo speakers are loud enough, and haptics are precise.

Cameras are where the phone still feels premium. The main 50MP sensor, 12MP ultrawide, and 48MP 5x telephoto still deliver sharp, contrast-heavy photos, especially in low light. Night Sight holds its own against the Pixel 8 line, though processing is a bit slower.

Battery life is average but not terrible. The 5,000mAh cell gets most people through a day unless you’re hammering the camera or gaming on mobile data. Charging caps at 23W wired and around 20W wireless, which feels slow compared to 80W or 100W bricks from Chinese OEMs, but overnight chargers exist for a reason.

Pricing freefall: deal or red flag?

Here’s where things get interesting, and also a little depressing. The Pixel 7 Pro launched at $899. Today, you can routinely see it around $400–$500 on Amazon, carriers, and flash sales, sometimes even lower on refurbished or carrier-locked deals.

On the one hand, that’s awesome for late adopters. For half the price of a Pixel 8 Pro, you’re getting a similar overall experience, including camera quality that’s only a small step behind. On the flip side, this brutal depreciation tells you exactly how Google values its own hardware after launch.

Samsung’s Galaxy S23 Ultra has also been discounted, but not to this level, and it launched at a higher $1,199 price. Apple’s iPhone 14 Pro still sells high on the used market because Apple keeps its pricing and product tiers tightly controlled. Meanwhile, the Pixel 7 Pro is turning into the tech equivalent of a clearance bin.

That might sound like a buyer’s dream, but aggressive, fast discounting trains customers to avoid buying Pixels at launch. Why pay $999 for a Pixel 8 Pro when you know the 8 Pro’s price will crater next year, just like the 7 Pro’s did this year?

Pixel 7 Pro vs Pixel 8 series: how big is the gap really?

If you compare the Pixel 7 Pro directly to the Pixel 8 and Pixel 8 Pro, the story gets even more complicated. The Pixel 8 Pro uses the newer Tensor G3 chip, adds some smarter camera tools, and brings a brighter display. But in daily use, the gap is tighter than Google’s marketing suggests.

Tensor G3 is slightly more efficient and a bit faster in heavy workloads, but neither G2 nor G3 are matching Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 or even 8 Gen 2 in sustained performance and heat management. So for most people, keeping Tensor G2 is not a deal-breaker.

The 8 Pro adds better video, improved image processing in tricky lighting, and some AI features like Best Take, Audio Magic Eraser, and more on-device processing. However, many of these AI tricks are slowly rolling back to the 7 Pro, even if not all of them arrive immediately.

Meanwhile, both phones run Android 14 now, with a Pixel-first Android 15 build coming later. The Pixel 8 family is promised seven years of OS and security updates. The Pixel 7 Pro is officially getting three years of OS and five years of security from its 2022 launch.

So yes, the Pixel 8 Pro is more future-proof on paper. But you’re paying roughly double or more for a longer support window and some nicer features, while the day-to-day experience is very similar. That creates a weird situation where the cheaper Pixel 7 Pro undermines Google’s own flagship narrative.

Software support and the awkward middle-child problem

Google’s new seven-year support promise for the Pixel 8 line sounds great if you are buying now. However, it quietly makes the Pixel 7 Pro feel like an abandoned middle child. It launched too early to get the long-term commitment and too late to feel like a vintage deal that people just accept.

Realistically, five years of security updates is still fine for many users. Plenty of people upgrade every three to four years anyway. But psychologically, knowing that your newly purchased Pixel 7 Pro will be done with OS updates sooner than a Pixel 8 bought tomorrow changes the value equation.

This is where the pricing crash becomes more than just a discount story. The phone is cheap because the market knows Google moved on fast. If you’re okay with a shorter official lifespan and you upgrade regularly, that’s a non-issue. However, if you want to keep phones longer, then saving money now comes with a clear tradeoff.

Google has accidentally made its older flagship feel disposable, and that is not a great long-term brand message for a company trying to be taken seriously in hardware.

Who should still buy the Google Pixel 7 Pro in 2026?

Despite the criticism, the Pixel 7 Pro’s new pricing does make sense for specific buyers. If you mainly care about photography, clean Android, and timely security patches, it’s an easy recommendation at $400–$500.

You still get per-pixel computational photography, strong portraits, and reliable low-light results without paying Pixel 8 money. Also, you get the bigger display and 5x telephoto that the regular Pixel 8 still lacks, which is important if you care about zoom.

On the other hand, if performance and long-term support are critical, you should think twice. Frequent mobile gamers, heavy video shooters, and people planning to keep a device for five or more years straight would be better off with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 or newer flagship, or at least stretching to a Pixel 8 Pro for the extended update promise.

Mid-range competitors also complicate the deal. Phones like the Samsung Galaxy A55 or OnePlus 12R bring newer silicon, faster charging, and sometimes similar or even better battery life. They lack the Pixel camera magic, but the gap is shrinking every year.

The bottom line is that the Google Pixel 7 Pro is now a smart buy because of the price, not because the industry suddenly misjudged it at launch. The discount corrects for Google’s inconsistent hardware support story and Tensor’s weaker performance profile.

Google’s hardware strategy has a Pixel 7 Pro-shaped hole

Stepping back, the Pixel 7 Pro price crash is less a feel-good bargain tale and more a warning sign. If last year’s $899 flagship becomes a sub-$500 phone this quickly, early adopters get punished, and future buyers learn to wait.

This erodes trust in Google’s pricing and upgrade cycle. It also makes each new Pixel launch feel temporary, like a placeholder for the next big discount event, rather than a flagship people can confidently invest in. Meanwhile, competitors like Samsung and Apple are slowly tightening their resale values and support timelines.

To sum up, the Google Pixel 7 Pro in 2026 is both the smartest Pixel buy and a symbol of Google’s hardware growing pains. If you go in with clear expectations about support length and performance, it’s a fantastic value. However, if you were hoping Google’s flagship strategy was finally stable, this price crash shows there is still a long way to go.

samsung - OnePlus 16 and its rumored 240Hz screen gamble

OnePlus 16 and its rumored 240Hz screen gamble

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Can a 240Hz screen really save the OnePlus 16 from fan backlash, or is this just another spec sheet distraction?

Right now, the hottest OnePlus 16 rumor isn’t about the camera, the chip, or the battery size. It’s the display refresh rate, with leaks pointing to a 240Hz panel that would easily outrun the 120Hz and 144Hz screens we’re used to on Android flagships. On paper, that sounds wild. However, once you step away from benchmark culture and think about real-world use, the excitement cools fast.

Most people can happily jump from 60Hz to 120Hz and see a huge upgrade in smoothness. Going from 120Hz to 240Hz? That’s where things get murkier, especially on a 6–7 inch phone.

What a 240Hz OnePlus 16 display actually means

Let’s start with the basics. A refresh rate is how many times per second the screen updates. Most Android flagships have settled at 120Hz, with a few gaming-focused models pushing 144Hz. A rumored 240Hz panel on the OnePlus 16 would double the common flagship standard.

If this rumor holds, expect a high-end LTPO OLED, likely at QHD+ or at least higher-end 1.5K resolution, to stay competitive with devices like the Galaxy S24 Ultra and Xiaomi 14 Ultra. LTPO (low-temperature polycrystalline oxide) lets the screen dynamically scale refresh rates to save power. That’s crucial if you’re going to chase 240Hz without torching battery life.

However, even with LTPO, driving 240 frames per second means more work for the GPU and higher power draw whenever the phone actually hits that top rate. So while scrolling Twitter, Reddit, or Chrome might look insanely fluid in theory, the question is whether your eyes, and your battery, will thank you for it.

OnePlus 16 display rumors vs real-world benefits

Here’s the blunt truth: most people will struggle to see a meaningful difference between 120Hz and 240Hz on a phone screen. Even going from 90Hz to 120Hz is subtle once the novelty wears off. That reality is why fans are already pushing back on these rumors.

On the flip side, competitive mobile gamers might get genuinely excited. A 240Hz panel paired with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 could, in theory, make ultra-high frame rate gaming smoother and more responsive, if the games support it. However, that “if” is doing a lot of work here.

Most Android games cap at 60 or 120 frames per second. Only a handful of titles on phones from Asus ROG or RedMagic even try to hit higher refresh rates. So even if the OnePlus 16 offers 240Hz, you may rarely see content that takes full advantage of it.

Instead, you’ll probably see a UI that happily runs at some combination of 1–120Hz for most tasks, with 240Hz reserved for select animations or supported games. In practice, this makes the spec feel more like a bragging right than a meaningful upgrade for the average user.

Battery life, heat, and the trade-off behind 240Hz

The other side of this rumor is power and thermals. High refresh rates do not exist in a vacuum. They increase GPU load, which increases heat, which then hits both sustained performance and battery life.

If the OnePlus 16 pushes 240Hz aggressively, OnePlus has two choices. Either let the phone ramp up to 240Hz often, burning battery and generating heat, or keep 240Hz as a rarely used mode for specific scenarios. In both cases, the user experience may not match the headline.

To support such a panel, we can safely assume a sizable battery, likely around 5,000mAh, plus very fast wired charging in the 80W to 100W range, given OnePlus’s history. Fast charging can cover up some efficiency sins, but it doesn’t change the fact that chasing 240Hz could make power management more complicated.

Meanwhile, thermal control on the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 will be a major factor. Qualcomm’s recent flagship chips, from the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 to the 8 Gen 3, already push high clocks and strong GPU performance. Adding a 240Hz target on top risks more aggressive throttling under sustained gaming.

So while a 240Hz OnePlus 16 sounds impressive, the cost could be shorter on-screen time, hotter sessions, or both, unless OnePlus is extremely disciplined with tuning.

What fans actually want from the OnePlus 16

Fan frustration around this rumor is not really about hating high refresh rates. Most Android enthusiasts love smooth displays. Instead, the concern is about priorities. People feel like OnePlus is chasing attention-grabbing specs instead of fixing long-standing issues.

For example, cameras have been the weak spot on recent OnePlus flagships. They’ve made progress with Hasselblad branding, better sensors, and decent tuning, but they still lag behind the Google Pixel 8 Pro and Galaxy S24 Ultra in consistency, low-light, and video quality. Building on this, many would rather see OnePlus nail color science and processing than bump refresh rates.

Software is another pain point. OxygenOS used to be a fan favorite for its clean look and snappy performance. Lately it has drifted closer to ColorOS, adding more bloat and losing some of its identity. However, rumors of OxygenOS 15 and Android 15 optimizations matter more to daily satisfaction than a jump from 120Hz to 240Hz.

Then there’s pricing. If OnePlus sticks around the $799–$899 range for the standard OnePlus 16, every spec choice is a trade-off. Higher-end panels cost more. So does a serious camera system with large sensors and stabilized telephoto. Fans are asking a fair question: why sink budget into a 240Hz novelty when the camera and software need more attention?

Where 240Hz on the OnePlus 16 might still make sense

To be fair, 240Hz is not entirely pointless. Under specific conditions, it can improve user experience. Fast vertical scrolling in long feeds, flicking between home screens, or rapid keyboard input can all feel more instant. If you are sensitive to motion blur, you might appreciate the extra headroom.

Additionally, pairing this screen with strong touch sampling, say 480Hz or higher, can make the OnePlus 16 feel hyper-responsive. Competitive gamers who live in shooters, MOBAs, or rhythm games might notice marginal gains, especially when combined with low-latency wireless audio and good thermal design.

That said, this is still a niche segment. Most buyers who walk into a carrier store or order online don’t care whether the screen is 120Hz or 240Hz, as long as it looks sharp, bright, and smooth. For them, camera reliability, battery life, and software support length matter far more.

The bottom line is that a 240Hz display makes sense on a dedicated gaming phone, less so on a general-purpose flagship that’s supposed to challenge Samsung and Google.

Should you actually care about a 240Hz OnePlus 16?

So, where does that leave potential buyers? If you’re the type of person who notices every frame, upgrades every year, and only buys flagships with the highest possible specs, the rumored 240Hz panel on the OnePlus 16 might excite you. It suggests OnePlus still wants to compete in the spec race.

However, for most people, the smarter approach is to wait and see what else the OnePlus 16 brings. Does it finally offer a camera that can reliably stand next to the Pixel 8 Pro in all conditions? Does OxygenOS stay fast and clean, or does it drift further into bloated territory? Does the battery hold up with a 240Hz mode enabled, or does it become a feature you immediately disable?

If OnePlus nails those fundamentals, a 240Hz display becomes a fun bonus. If they don’t, then the OnePlus 16 will feel like a phone built to win spec sheet arguments, not to actually improve your daily life.

Ultimately, the primary question is not whether the OnePlus 16 can ship a 240Hz display, but whether it should. Until we see the full package, every Android fan considering the OnePlus 16 should treat this rumor as a flashy extra, not a deciding factor.

Pixel Watch 4 review: Google finally gets serious

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Smartwatches are having a very weird moment. Apple is busy stripping health features from the Apple Watch in some markets, Samsung is pushing AI buzzwords on the Galaxy Watch 7 and Ultra, and Wear OS has spent years trying to prove it’s not a graveyard for half-baked experiments.

In that context, the Google Pixel Watch 4 feels almost boring—and that might be exactly what Wear OS needed. Instead of chasing stunt features, Google is trying to deliver a watch you can wear every day without babysitting the battery or fighting lag.

This is Google’s fourth shot at its own smartwatch, and the pressure is real. The company needs a reliable reference device for Wear OS, the same way the Pixel phones anchor Android on the phone side. The question is whether the Pixel Watch 4 is finally that anchor, or just another pleasant but forgettable attempt.

Pixel Watch 4 design: familiar to a fault

Let’s start with the most obvious part: the design. If you’ve seen a Pixel Watch before, you’ve basically seen the Pixel Watch 4. The domed glass, small footprint, and minimalist look all return with only subtle tweaks.

The display is still a circular OLED panel with slim bezels by Wear OS standards, though not as invisible as renders suggest. The size again targets smaller wrists, which is great for comfort but still leaves big-watch fans eyeing the Galaxy Watch 7 Ultra instead.

However, the casing feels a bit more refined. The stainless steel build has cleaner lines, and the crown has slightly better tactile feedback, making scrolling through lists feel more controlled. The proprietary band connector returns too, which is annoying if you like cheap third-party bands.

On the flip side, it’s comfortable and light enough to wear overnight for sleep tracking, which matters more in daily life than having a flashy design. Just don’t expect it to turn heads next to something like a titanium Garmin or even a larger Galaxy Watch.

Performance and hardware: finally fast enough

Under the hood, Google is done experimenting with ancient chips. The Pixel Watch 4 runs a modern Samsung Exynos-based platform under the Wear OS 5 umbrella, in the same performance class as the Snapdragon W5 Gen 1 seen in some rivals.

The result is a watch that actually feels responsive. Swiping between tiles, launching apps, and loading Assistant responses are all noticeably quicker than the first Pixel Watch. Meanwhile, animations stay mostly smooth, even with multiple fitness tiles active.

There’s 2GB of RAM and 32GB of storage, giving enough headroom for apps, watch faces, and a decent offline playlist on Spotify or YouTube Music. Importantly, that combination also keeps the OS from choking when you have a few tiles refreshing in the background.

However, you will still see occasional hiccups. Third-party apps built poorly for Wear OS can stutter, and some health tiles take a second to refresh data. This isn’t a tiny smartphone on your wrist, but for once, it doesn’t feel like a toy.

Wear OS 5 and Google smarts on your wrist

Software is where the Pixel Watch 4 quietly pulls ahead. This is the first watch built specifically around Wear OS 5, with Google’s own hardware team and Fitbit’s health stack finally feeling more aligned.

Tiles are cleaner, fitness data is easier to glance at, and Assistant responses arrive quicker. You still get the usual mix of Google Maps, Wallet, Calendar, and Gmail on your wrist, plus support for offline navigation when paired correctly with your phone.

Building on this, Google’s deep integration with Android helps a lot. Quick reply suggestions in notifications are smarter, and Do Not Disturb syncs more reliably with your Pixel or other Android phone. The watch also supports Android’s fall detection-style safety features in more regions than before.

However, the Fitbit layer still feels like a separate product living on top of Wear OS. You manage your data in the Fitbit app, your membership upsells show up there, and the free tier still feels a bit too limited for anyone who takes fitness seriously.

Health and fitness: good enough for most people

Health tracking is where the Pixel Watch 4 is clearly aimed at mainstream users, not hardcore athletes. You get continuous heart rate, irregular rhythm notifications, sleep tracking with stages, stress indicators, and automatic workout detection for common activities.

GPS performance is stable, with lock-on times that are quicker than the original Pixel Watch and roughly on par with mid-range Garmins. For casual runners and cyclists, distance and pace accuracy are close enough to trust.

On the flip side, athletes who obsess over training metrics will still find the experience basic. You’re not getting the deep training load, recovery, and advanced running dynamics offered by Garmin, COROS, or Polar. The Pixel Watch 4 is more about nudging you toward healthy habits than coaching you through a marathon season.

Sleep tracking has improved, with more consistent detection of sleep and wake times and less random fragmentation. However, like most wrist-based solutions, it still occasionally mislabels late-night Netflix as light sleep.

The bottom line is that the health suite is now reliable enough for day-to-day insight. But serious fitness enthusiasts should still look elsewhere if training data is their priority.

Battery life and charging: finally a full day (and then some)

Battery life has been the Achilles’ heel of many Wear OS watches. The Pixel Watch 4 doesn’t magically turn into a multi-day beast, but it finally crosses the line from “annoying” to “acceptable.”

With always-on display enabled, moderate notifications, a short GPS workout, and sleep tracking, you can usually push through a full 24 hours without panic. Turn off always-on and trim GPS use, and you’re looking at roughly a day and a half.

Compared to a Galaxy Watch 7, that’s competitive, even if Samsung can sometimes squeeze out a little more with lighter use. Compared to an Apple Watch Series 10, it’s in the same general ballpark for most users.

Charging is still done via a proprietary puck, but speeds are slightly faster. A quick 30-minute top-up gets you enough juice for an evening out and overnight sleep tracking. However, you’ll still want to plan a charge window daily.

Ultimately, Google finally delivers battery life that doesn’t ruin the experience, but it still can’t touch the multi-day endurance of simpler hybrid watches or dedicated sports wearables.

Pricing, value, and competition

Pricing puts the Pixel Watch 4 in familiar flagship territory. The Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi model sits around the $349 mark, with the LTE variant closer to $399 depending on your region and carrier deals.

That plants it squarely against the Samsung Galaxy Watch 7 and slightly under typical Apple Watch pricing in many markets. Meanwhile, Garmin’s Venu 3 series often hovers in a nearby range during sales, bringing very different priorities to the table.

On the value side, the Pixel Watch 4 mostly justifies its price if you live fully inside Google’s ecosystem. The integration with Android phones, Assistant, and Google apps makes daily use feel coherent, even when Fitbit’s upsells get in the way.

However, if you own a Samsung phone, the Galaxy Watch line still has tighter integration and more mature health features like body composition estimates and better automatic workout detection. Likewise, if you care more about battery and training metrics than smart features, a Garmin or COROS is still the smarter buy.

Pixel Watch 4 verdict: a boring step in the right direction

So, where does that leave the Pixel Watch 4 in the larger smartwatch landscape? In a surprisingly positive spot—just not an exciting one.

Google finally ships a Wear OS watch that feels ready for normal users rather than early adopters. Performance is smooth enough, health tracking is accurate enough, and battery life is long enough that you stop thinking about those things all the time.

That said, the lack of bold new ideas makes the Pixel Watch 4 feel more like a course correction than a flagship statement. The design is safe, the fitness tools are competent but shallow, and the software still leans on Fitbit’s awkward subscription strategy.

If you’re an Android user who wants a clean, Google-first smartwatch that won’t fight you, the Pixel Watch 4 is finally easy to recommend. However, if you were hoping for a truly ambitious reference device that pushes the smartwatch category forward, this isn’t it.

Ultimately, the Pixel Watch 4 shows Google can build a good smartwatch, but we’re still waiting to see if it can build a great one.