google - IntoDroid

Google’s Project Genie: The Virtual World We Didn’t Ask For

31/01/202631/01/2026 Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Contradicting the Hype: Are We Ready for User-Generated Virtual Worlds?

In a world where tech enthusiasts often celebrate innovation, Google‘s Project Genie is already stirring controversy. Many believe that empowering users to create their own virtual worlds is a significant concept. However, I’m not convinced that this is the leap forward we need. With existing platforms struggling to deliver, can Google truly change the game?

The idea behind Project Genie is simple yet ambitious: it aims to democratize virtual world creation by allowing users to design and share their environments. While the concept sounds enticing, the execution raises several critical questions. Are we prepared for the complexities of user-generated content in a space that has seen mixed results from platforms like Roblox and Fortnite?

Understanding Project Genie: Features and Aspirations

Project Genie is built on the premise that anyone can become a creator. Users will be able to use intuitive tools to shape their own spaces. This includes everything from landscapes to interactive elements. Google promises that these tools will make it easy for anyone with minimal technical knowledge to dive into virtual world creation.

The technology is based on Google’s existing AR and VR frameworks, which have shown promise in previous projects. However, translating this promise into a user-friendly platform will require significant attention to detail. Building a virtual world is not just about providing tools; it’s about ensuring that those tools foster creativity and community rather than confusion and chaos.

One notable aspect of Project Genie is its potential integration with Google’s existing services. Imagine sharing your virtual creation directly through Google Meet or embedding it in a Google Docs presentation. While this sounds convenient, the reality may be far more complicated. How will Google handle the influx of user-generated content? What moderation systems will be in place to maintain quality and safety? These are questions that remain unanswered.

The Mixed Bag of User-Generated Content

User-generated content (UGC) has its merits, but it also comes with drawbacks. Platforms like TikTok and YouTube have thrived on UGC, but they also face challenges like copyright issues, misinformation, and community management. The virtual world space is no different.

While some users may create stunning environments, others may produce low-quality or inappropriate content. Google must implement solid moderation and filtering systems to ensure a safe user experience. Otherwise, Project Genie risks becoming a haven for toxic content, hampering its community-building aspirations.

Moreover, the question of accessibility looms large. While Google aims to provide user-friendly tools, will those tools genuinely be accessible to everyone? If the platform skews towards a more tech-savvy user base, it could alienate casual users who may feel intimidated by the complexity. Without a diverse community, the platform’s potential will be severely limited.

Competing in a Crowded Market

Project Genie enters an already crowded market filled with established players like Meta’s Horizon Worlds and Roblox. These platforms have built-in user bases and ecosystems that attract creators. Google will face immense challenges in carving out its niche. What unique features will Project Genie offer that set it apart from these competitors?

If Google can leverage its strengths, such as powerful cloud computing and machine learning capabilities, it might deliver something noteworthy. However, the burden of proof rests on Google to demonstrate that Project Genie can provide a better experience than what’s currently available. Without compelling features, it risks being just another underwhelming addition to the virtual landscape.

Consumer Impact: What’s at Stake?

The potential consumer impact of Project Genie is substantial, but it comes with caveats. If successful, it could foster creativity and collaboration among users worldwide. However, if poorly executed, it could lead to frustration and disengagement.

Furthermore, Google’s history of sunsetting projects raises concerns. What happens if Project Genie doesn’t meet expectations? Will users be left with abandoned worlds and unfinished projects? These uncertainties cast a long shadow over the initiative.

Consumers are understandably skeptical. They’ve seen tech giants launch ambitious projects only to abandon them when they don’t reach critical mass. Until Google can prove its commitment and capacity to support Project Genie, potential users might be hesitant to invest their time and creativity in the platform.

Final Thoughts: A Cautious Outlook

In conclusion, while Project Genie holds promise, it’s essential to approach it with caution. The idea of user-generated virtual worlds is appealing, but the execution will determine its success or failure. Google has the resources and technology to make significant strides, but it must address issues like moderation, accessibility, and competition head-on.

Ultimately, the tech community should keep a close eye on Project Genie. It could either transform how we interact with virtual environments or become another blip in Google’s long list of unfinished projects. For now, I remain cautiously optimistic but highly critical of how well Google can deliver on this ambitious vision.

Key takeaways and next steps

As this story develops, readers should watch how google’s project genie: the virtual world we didn’t ask for impacts broader Android and wearable trends. Small shifts in product strategy can signal bigger changes in ecosystem priorities, pricing, and feature rollouts.

For now, the most practical advice is to compare expected features against real-world needs, keep an eye on official announcements, and evaluate how new devices integrate with existing services. Google’s Project Genie aims to let users create virtual worlds, but is this the innovation we need? Let’s examine the potential and pitfalls of this initiative.

If you’re considering an upgrade or new purchase, waiting for hands-on reviews and battery life tests can help avoid surprises once the product reaches consumers.

Google’s $135M Android data deal: progress or PR fix?

29/01/202631/01/2026 Nadia Malik 1 Comment

Google’s privacy track record has been under a microscope for years, and Android is usually at the center of that scrutiny. Regulators from the US to the EU have pushed hard on data collection, especially around location and cross‑app tracking. Now Google’s $135 million Android data-privacy settlement is the latest signal that software behavior, not hardware specs, is where the real battles are happening.

This isn’t another headline about a shiny Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 flagship or a 120Hz AMOLED panel. Instead, it’s about how the OS underneath those specs quietly collects your data, even when you think you’ve said “no.” And while a one‑time payout of up to $100 sounds nice, the more interesting question is whether this changes how Android works going forward.

What the Android data-privacy settlement actually covers

According to the class action complaint, the core allegation is simple: Android users said they didn’t want certain data collected, and Google allegedly collected it anyway. That includes things like background location and usage behavior tied to Google accounts across devices.

The proposed $135 million settlement, filed in San Jose, California, targets exactly this mismatch between user expectations and Android’s actual behavior. As Reuters reports, eligible Android users could get a recovery payout of up to $100 each, depending on how many people file claims.

However, the money is the surface story. The more important piece is how Google agrees to change Android’s software defaults, disclosures, and system-level toggles. Class action settlements like this often force UI changes, clearer permission dialogs, and tighter rules on what happens when you toggle something “off.”

How this could reshape Android’s privacy controls

On paper, Android’s privacy toolkit already looks pretty strong. You get per‑app permissions, one‑time location access, background access prompts, and notification controls. On Android 14, privacy dashboards show which apps hit your camera, microphone, or location over time.

The problem has been trust, not features. Users flip off location history, or pause Web & App Activity, and then hear that data still moved around in some form. This settlement could force Google to align background data flows more tightly with visible switches in the OS and Google Account settings.

For example, we could see clearer integration between Android’s system‑level location toggle and Google’s own services. Right now, turning off device location doesn’t fully lock down every type of Google account data. After this settlement, Android may need more obvious, synced controls that actually stop tracking when you say they should.

Building on that, expect more explicit language in permission prompts. Instead of vague “improves your experience” wording, dialogs may have to spell out what’s tracked, for how long, and across which devices. That’s boring UI work, but it affects every phone from budget Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 devices to Pixel 8 Pro flagships.

What Android users might actually see change

So, how does this land on real phones? First, there will likely be targeted updates to Google Play Services, since that’s the backbone for most account and location handling on Android. Those updates roll out quietly to nearly every active Android handset, even older models stuck on Android 12 or 13.

Second, Google will probably tweak the Settings app. Expect more prominent privacy hubs, more aggressive alerts when apps ping location in the background, and maybe fewer buried menus. Over the past few Android versions, Google has slowly unified privacy settings; this deal gives them legal motivation to accelerate that.

Third, we may see stronger limits on how apps can infer location or identity indirectly. For example, even if GPS is off, Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth scans can still be used to guess where you are. Any new constraints or disclosures around those signals will matter a lot more than another camera update.

However, don’t expect this to suddenly stop Google from personalizing ads or content. The settlement is about consent and transparency, not banning data‑driven business models. If you were hoping this would end behavioral tracking on Android, you’re going to be disappointed.

Pros for consumers: real pressure on Google’s software stack

On the positive side, legal pressure usually results in more visible controls and safer defaults. Just like the EU’s antitrust cases forced Android to add browser and search choice screens, this settlement can push Google to tighten its privacy story.

For everyday users, that should mean fewer dark‑pattern dashboards and more honest options. If you tap “turn off tracking” on your $999 Pixel 8 Pro or your mid‑range Galaxy A55, the OS should stop trying to be clever about routing data through other toggles.

From a developer standpoint, this might also make the rules clearer. If Google updates its Play policies and APIs to match the settlement, devs will have more explicit guidance about what is and isn’t allowed when it comes to background data.

Meanwhile, rivals like Apple are already selling privacy as a feature, even while quietly running their own analytics. Google can’t afford to look behind on privacy again, especially when Android 15 is around the corner and AI‑heavy features mean even more data processing.

Where this falls short: money isn’t the main issue

On the flip side, $135 million is not exactly painful for a company posting tens of billions in profit every quarter. For Google, this is a modest cost of doing business, not an existential warning shot.

The per‑user payout, up to $100, is nice but doesn’t compensate for years of data collection that can’t be undone. Your behavioral profile doesn’t just vanish because Google wrote a check in San Jose. Financial settlements without strict technical audits are basically trust‑me promises.

And that’s the real weakness here. Unless the agreement includes ongoing independent audits of Android’s data flows and Google’s services, enforcement will rely heavily on Google policing itself. History suggests that’s not always enough.

That said, public settlements create a paper trail that regulators can use later. If Google backslides, this case becomes evidence in the next lawsuit or fine. So the deal still has teeth, just not fangs.

Cautious optimism for Android’s privacy future

The bigger picture is this: Android is no longer competing only on raw performance or camera tricks. When every flagship packs at least a Snapdragon 8 Gen 2‑class chip or Tensor G3‑level silicon and 120Hz OLED panels, software trust becomes a major differentiator.

In that context, the Google Android data-privacy settlement looks like both a PR move and a software roadmap nudge. The PR side is obvious: users see headlines about payouts and think justice is served. The roadmap side is quieter but more important, pushing Android toward clearer, more enforceable privacy controls.

Ultimately, how much this helps depends on what Google actually ships. If we see concrete changes in Android 15 beta builds, Google Play Services behavior, and permission wording over the next year, then this settlement will have done real work.

To sum up, the settlement alone doesn’t fix Android’s trust deficit. But if it leads to honest toggles, fewer data loopholes, and stronger system‑level privacy by default, this could be a meaningful step forward for Android users who are tired of feeling tricked by their own phones. And yes, that verdict will depend on how Google implements these software changes long after the headlines about the Android data-privacy settlement fade.

Google’s Aluminium OS leak shows Android on PC

28/01/202631/01/2026 Nadia Malik 2 Comments

If you care about Android on anything bigger than a 6.7-inch slab, you need to pay attention right now.

Google just quietly leaked Aluminium OS, its ChromeOS / Android hybrid, and it might finally be taking Android on PC seriously.

For years, Windows laptops, Chromebooks, and ARM tablets have been stuck with half-baked Android stories. Now, thanks to a Google bug report caught by 9to5Google, we have our first real look at Android running on a desktop-style interface directly from Google.

What Aluminium OS actually is: Android on PC, Google-style

Let’s start with what Aluminium OS appears to be: a ChromeOS-based platform that runs Android at the system level, not as a hacked-on container or separate emulator. Think ChromeOS plus Android, but more tightly fused.

Right now, Chromebooks already run Android apps using a container model. That works fine for basic apps, but it feels like a compatibility layer, not a native environment. With Aluminium OS, Google seems to be building a platform where Android can behave like a first-class citizen on larger screens.

According to the leak, Google’s internal build shows Android windows running on a desktop UI, with typical ChromeOS-style window management. That suggests proper resizing, overlapping windows, and keyboard and mouse support by design, not as an afterthought.

In practice, that could mean your Android apps finally respecting desktop workflows. Messaging apps docked to the side, a proper file picker, keyboard shortcuts that don’t feel hacked in, and maybe even multi-window setups that don’t collapse the second you rotate a display.

How Aluminium OS compares to Windows Subsystem for Android

We already have one big player doing Android on PC: Microsoft. Windows Subsystem for Android (WSA) let people run mobile apps on x86 and ARM laptops, especially when paired with Amazon’s Appstore. That project showed the promise, but Microsoft killed WSA in 2025.

On paper, Google is in a better position. It owns Android, it controls Google Play, and it already manages Android containers on ChromeOS. However, whether Aluminium OS beats WSA comes down to a few technical and strategic choices.

First, performance. WSA on a modern Intel Core Ultra or AMD Ryzen 7 was fine for social apps and casual games, but heavy 3D titles often lagged. If Aluminium OS is heavily based on ChromeOS’ existing container system, it should benefit from years of optimization on low-power chips like Snapdragon 7c and MediaTek Kompanio.

Second, integration with Play Store. Microsoft had to rely on Amazon’s store, which meant limited app selection and fewer Google services. Google, on the other hand, can plug in the full Play stack, with Play Services, Google Play Games, and proper in-app billing support.

However, there’s a catch. If Google keeps Aluminium OS locked to Chromebooks, it hands the broader PC space back to Windows and third-party emulators. The leak doesn’t yet show any sign Aluminium OS is coming to generic PCs, and that’s a big question mark.

UI, multitasking, and what Android desperately needs on big screens

Android has struggled on tablets and large screens for a decade. Even with Android 12L and Android 14 polishing layouts, too many apps still behave like stretched phone UIs. That’s a problem on Galaxy Tab devices and Pixel Tablet, and it’ll be a bigger problem on 27-inch monitors.

From the leaked video and screenshots described, Aluminium OS seems focused on a desktop paradigm: windows, a taskbar-style area, and proper app snapping. That’s closer to how Samsung Dex, Huawei’s desktop mode, and Lenovo’s productivity modes work.

The difference is that this time, it’s Google building the shell. If Aluminium OS standardizes a desktop window model for Android, OEMs like Samsung may stop inventing their own half-compatible solutions. That helps developers, who currently need to test on phones, tablets, Dex, ChromeOS, and random OEM modes.

Still, there’s risk here. Android keyboards, mouse support, and multi-window logic have improved, but they’re nowhere near Windows-level consistency. Developers often treat keyboard shortcuts as optional and leave focus handling broken. If Aluminium OS doesn’t enforce better desktop UX standards, you’ll just get floating phone apps instead of real PC-class software.

On the flip side, the potential upside is huge. Imagine an ARM Chromebook with a Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 or future Snapdragon X Elite-class chip. You’d get modern flagship Android performance, advanced NPUs for AI features, and a light desktop OS that runs mobile apps without emulation layers.

Why this matters for Chromebook users, devs, and Google’s hardware plans

For Chromebook owners, Aluminium OS could be the difference between “Android apps as a bonus” and “Android apps as the main reason to buy.” Right now, the best Chromebooks pair an Intel Core i5 or i7 with 8GB or 16GB RAM and a 1440p or 4K 120Hz IPS or OLED display, but Android apps still feel like second-class citizens.

If Android becomes more deeply integrated, mid-range Chromebooks with ARM chips and 8GB RAM could suddenly feel like viable general-purpose machines. You’d get Chrome for web, Android for apps, and maybe Linux containers for dev work. That’s a more compelling pitch than a $999 Windows ultrabook that struggles with battery life.

Developers, meanwhile, get another headache and another opportunity. They already target phones, tablets, foldables like the Galaxy Z Fold 6, and ChromeOS. Aluminium OS adds yet another hybrid configuration to worry about. However, if Google plays this right, it can unify guidance and say: design for phones, large screens, and desktop-style windows, and those layouts will work across everything.

From a hardware strategy angle, Aluminium OS also fits with Google’s clear interest in ARM PCs and AI laptops. Tensor G4 in a Pixel phone is fine, but imagine a Tensor-based Chromebook with a dedicated NPU for on-device Gemini, plus native Android app support.

The timing makes sense too. Qualcomm is pushing Snapdragon X Elite for Windows on ARM, promising high performance and long battery life. If Google lets those same chips power Aluminium-based Chromebooks, we finally get serious ARM competition against Intel Evo laptops.

The catch: Google’s commitment problem and the risk of another abandoned project

Here’s the part where I throw some cold water on the hype: Google is a serial killer of half-finished platforms.

We’ve seen it with Stadia, Inbox, Google+, Allo, and dozens of smaller projects. Even in the Android world, initiatives like tablet-optimized UIs and Android TV branding have started strong then faded into inconsistency. So when Aluminium OS leaks via a bug report, not an I/O keynote, my first reaction is cautious optimism, not blind excitement.

The big questions are simple. Will Aluminium OS ship on real devices, with clear branding and support windows? Will Google guarantee multi-year updates like ChromeOS does today? And will it commit developer resources to pushing better desktop UX standards for Android apps?

If this turns into another half-launched experiment, consumers and developers will be absolutely right to ignore Android on PC for another five years. Meanwhile, Windows will keep leaning on web apps, and Mac users will keep running iPad ports through Apple Silicon.

To sum up, Aluminium OS looks like Google’s most serious attempt yet to make Android on PC not suck. The leak shows a real desktop shell, system-level integration, and a plausible path to shipping on Chromebooks.

However, the bottom line is simple: Android on PC only matters if Google sticks with Aluminium OS long enough to fix the rough edges and win developer trust. If it does, we might finally stop asking whether Android belongs on laptops and start asking which ARM laptop runs it best.

Until then, treat Aluminium OS as a promising prototype, not a guaranteed future. The concept is strong, the timing is right, and competitors have left a gap.

Now it’s on Google to prove that Android on PC, via Aluminium OS, is more than another short-lived experiment.

Pixel Watch 4 review: Google finally gets serious

05/11/202501/02/2026 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.