Apple Watch Vs. Galaxy Watch: Which Battery Lasts Longer?

July 20, 2026 8:47 am EST

laur2321/Shutterstock

“Both Apple and Samsung offer smartwatches that pair nicely with your iPhone or Android. The latest models, the Apple Watch Series 11 and Samsung Galaxy Watch 8, are both great tools for tracking fitness, sleep, and other health metrics while keeping you connected to your messages, calls, and various notifications when you aren't looking at your phone. More than smartphones, smartwatches need a long-lasting battery that will keep your device going throughout the day and (if you want it to monitor your sleep) overnight. So a smartwatch should have at least 24 hours of battery life.

While the choice between these smartwatches largely comes down to which ecosystem you're already in, as Apple and Samsung's wearables aren't compatible with the other's smartphones, it's worth comparing them based on battery life. Based on each company's own listed device specs, the Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 should win with up to 30 hours of use compared to the Apple Watch Series 11's 24 hours of normal use (up to 38 hours in low power mode). In practice, though, Apple Watch usually comes out on top.

When comparing the two devices, PCMag found the Galaxy Watch missed its listed battery life at 26 hours, while the Apple Watch far exceeded its expected results, staying powered for 43 hours. A CNET test found both lasted around 30 hours, with the Apple Watch ranging between 27 to 32 hours, meaning it lasts longer than expected and, often, longer than the Galaxy Watch. That said, if battery life is your primary concern, you should look at other smartwatches.

Other smartwatches last longer than Apple or Samsung watches

Mtstock Studio/Getty Images

First, if you want a wearable focused on fitness and health tracking, go with a fitness band over a smartwatch. Not only are they more specialized, but their battery life is best measured in days, not hours. Some wearable gadgets with unusually long battery life could even last you a month on one charge, making Apple and Samsung's smartwatches seem less impressive.

If you're looking for a long-lasting device with more robust features, there are plenty of smartwatches with better battery life than Apple Watch Series 11, including the premium Ultra models of both Apple and Samsung's devices. You could also consider Garmin smartwatches, as they're designed for athletes and the outdoorsy and can stay powered for weeks. The company even offers solar-powered models like the Garmin Instinct 3, which can get enough power from three hours of bright and direct light to last an entire day, meaning that it technically has unlimited battery life.

For most, though, sticking with an Apple, Samsung, or Google-made smartwatch designed to seamlessly communicate with your smartphones is the best option. Fortunately, if you're worried your smartwatch's battery is draining too fast, there are easy ways to increase battery life on Samsung Galaxy Watch and maximize your Apple Watch's battery health and lifespan.“

 

Google Is Building an A.I. Fence Around the Internet It Once Championed

​

“Google’s incorporation of AI into search, particularly through AI Mode, is causing concern among website operators. While Google claims to be sending billions of clicks to the web, studies show users are spending more time on Google and less time visiting external websites. This shift threatens the open web and its fundamental economic model, as more searches are being performed by AI chatbots, reducing human traffic to websites.

​

As Google incorporates more artificial intelligence into search, people are spending more time on Google. Some website operators are crying foul.

July 20, 2026

When Google prepared to go public in 2004, Larry Page, a co-founder of the company, wrote a letter to shareholders describing the internet firm’s responsibility to the world.

“We believe a well-functioning society should have abundant, free and unbiased access to high-quality information,” Mr. Page said.

Google fulfilled that responsibility by acting as a gateway to the internet. It answered people’s search queries with lists of hyperlinks, pushing users out to what is known as the “open web” — the millions of websites run by merchants, publishers, universities and others — for more information. In the ensuing decades, Google became one of the planet’s richest and most powerful companies by directing people to the vastness of the open web.

Now in the age of artificial intelligence, Google appears to be shrinking back from the open web — and may be imperiling it.

Since last year, the Silicon Valley giant has revamped its search with A.I. It introduced AI Mode, which replaces search results of hyperlinks with conversational responses written by Gemini, its A.I. chatbot. Most recently, Google changed its iconic search box for the first time in 25 years so that people could add photos and videos to their queries and assign A.I. “agents” to run searches for them.

Google last year introduced AI Mode, which replaces search results of hyperlinks with conversational responses written by Gemini, its A.I. chatbot.Video by Kelsey Mcclellan For The New York Times

The effect of these moves is becoming clear: People are spending more time with Google than ever.

Users are writing queries three times as long as the keyword-heavy questions they asked of traditional searches, Google said at its developer conference in May. People are spending one to nine more minutes in AI Mode than on traditional Google searches, according to three studies from researchers tallied by The New York Times. One October study from Growth Memo, a newsletter focused on search and marketing, found that in about 75 percent of sessions, users never left AI Mode for the web.

For publishers, businesses, banks and others that relied on Google to funnel its billions of users to their websites, the impact has been unmistakable as the company has increasingly incorporated A.I. into search. Google’s users are no longer leaving Google after a search and are just reading its A.I.-generated answers, they said, which means fewer people are coming to their websites and search traffic has dropped.

Nilay Patel, the editor in chief of the technology website The Verge, has warned publishers for years that they would face “Google Zero,” a moment when traffic from Google would plummet to nothing.

“For publishers, Google Zero is already here,” he said. “It wasn’t until AI Mode arrived that people could see that the slow creep was about to hit a tipping point.”

The changes threaten the open web and show how rapidly A.I. has upended the technology landscape. Tim Berners-Lee, the computer scientist credited with inventing the World Wide Web in 1989, had envisioned the web as a tool for global collaboration without borders, where people could launch their own websites and flit freely among sites created by others.

Much of that vision has been chipped away over the years, as tech behemoths like Apple and Meta created “walled gardens,” or tech ecosystems where users could get almost everything they needed under one roof. Now A.I. has indisputably accelerated that trajectory, Mr. Berners-Lee said in a 2024 essay.

Tech companies have built empires that locked users in and were focused on maximizing profit instead of enhancing public utility, Mr. Berners-Lee wrote. “The rapid advancement of A.I. has exacerbated these concerns,” he added, “proving that issues on the web are not isolated but rather deeply intertwined with emerging technologies.”

Google has denied that it is endangering the open web. In a blog post last August, Liz Reid, a vice president of search, said that the company’s ethos had not changed and that it was sending out a “relatively stable” number of clicks numbering in the billions. Reports of a decline in search traffic were “inaccurate” and relied on “flawed methodologies,” she said.

“We care passionately — perhaps more than any other company — about the health of the web ecosystem,” Ms. Reid said.

Liz Reid, a vice president of search at Google, said in August that the company was sending out a “relatively stable” number of clicks numbering in the billions.Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times

Since publishing that blog post, Google has added more A.I. to search. It also created some features intended to push users out of AI Mode and into the broader web, including previews of websites to some responses and a tool that lets people set “preferred sources” so that A.I. refers to their favorite news outlets more frequently. The company also created a profile that helps publishers and creators promote their work in search.

“Google’s AI Search features send billions of clicks to the web every week, meeting people’s evolving preferences for how they want to find information while driving significant traffic to websites,” a Google spokesman said in a statement, adding that the company’s A.I. features highlight links to the web.

Even so, searches are increasingly being performed by A.I. chatbots while the number of people visiting websites is falling, according to Cloudflare, a content delivery network company. While someone might once have Googled a soccer player’s World Cup performance and clicked to a sports site or a social media thread for commentary, a bot now crawls the web for that information and returns the player’s statistics to the user, who stays on Google.

In total, more than 50 percent of web traffic is now nonhuman, Cloudflare said. Between June 2025 and April 2026, human traffic to websites of businesses in industries like finance, publishing and retail dropped nearly 40 percent, it added.

The web’s fundamental economic model has changed, Cloudflare said, and chatbot-style search tools like Google’s could put the open web in peril if left unchecked.

Google’s A.I., along with other popular chatbots, have hit Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the online encyclopedia, said it had experienced an 8 percent decline in human visitors to its site over the past year. At the same time, it has seen an increase in bots scraping its site for data to train A.I. models.

“My work is to ensure that people don’t forget about us because Google’s user interface changed,” said Selena Deckelmann, the Wikimedia Foundation’s chief product and technology officer.

Wikipedia has started promoting its own app and social media channels to establish connections with readers outside Google’s ecosystem, she said. It also began charging Google and other A.I. firms for access to its data for training.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which manages Wikipedia, cited an 8 percent decline in human visitors to its site over the past year.Caroline Gutman for The New York Times

Last month, Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority mandated that Google change its A.I. search tools in the United Kingdom to address publishers’ concerns. The regulator said Google must include clear links to attribute content in chatbot responses, a move intended to help send traffic to websites. The company is also required to allow website operators to opt out of having their content appear in A.I. summaries, and is making the changes across search globally.

For some open web proponents, the fact that people can leave Google’s ecosystem remains enough.

“Whether it uses a traditional search method or A.I., I think Google is still facilitating access to the open internet,” said Tori Noble, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit focused on defending civil liberties online. “It’s not a closed universe” compared with walled gardens like Facebook, which requires a login for access, she added.

That’s little comfort to some website operators.

In May, Vox Media, which owns The Verge and other publications, began selling some of its sites. Jim Bankoff, Vox Media’s chief executive, said the “decimation of search traffic” had influenced his decision to sell about half of the company to James Murdoch. In June, The Verge and several other Vox Media websites were sold to Penske Media.

Google has often said it was “sending out more traffic and the web is bigger than ever,” Mr. Patel said. “And then right next to that is a bunch of publishers whose businesses are getting destroyed.”

Benjamin Mullin contributed reporting.“

Canon’s New Camera Is Kinda Weird - YouTube

 

Canon’s New Camera Is Kinda Weird

Your iPad's Notes App Can Do More Than You Think

 

Moving Google Photos to iCloud — What Actually Happens

 

The Lost Footage From 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) They Still Won't Show You

 

The Last Surviving Spaceship from 2001: A Space Odyssey

 

The Hidden Colors of the 2001: A Space Odyssey Spacesuit Helmet

 

(2779) Nobody Saw THIS Coming From…Tamron?

 

 

Nobody Saw THIS Coming From…Tamron?

These Cameras Solve Different Problems (Luna Ultra vs Osmo Pocket 4)

 

 These Cameras Solve Different Problems (Luna Ultra vs Osmo Pocket 4) 

The RAMpocalypse just got so much worse...

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Whistleblowers Were Right About Aliens

 

The Technology We Killed in the 1960s Is Now Worth $3.3 Billion

 

Opinion | We Must Address the Growing Rage Against the A.I. Machine - The New York Times

We Must Address the Growing Rage Against the A.I. Machine

July 11, 2026

Ben Denzer

By Eric Schmidt and Selina Xu

"Mr. Schmidt is the chief executive of Relativity Space and a former chief executive of Google. Ms. Xu is a China and technology analyst.

Humanity is inching along a precarious tightrope.

Our world is in the midst of deciding how the artificial intelligence revolution will unfold and what limits should be drawn. Too much caution could waste A.I.’s promise of faster economic growth, greater scientific discovery and more prosperity. Too little caution could unleash labor-market chaos and social disorder. Balance matters. If we get the balance between control and growth wrong at any point, we’ll fall into the gorge below. And no country is guaranteed to get to the opposite side.

This is our century’s biggest survival challenge.

The Chinese tech executives we met on a trip last month were optimists about the technology, but they were much more conservative than Silicon Valley on how fast the growth of A.I. ought to be. Some were wary about replacing their employees too aggressively with A.I. Others worried that if A.I. became destabilizing, China’s entire industry might be reined in by the government. One chief executive even said point-blank that growing more slowly was preferable to going full speed ahead, so as to avoid a repeat of the Luddite backlash toward the Industrial Revolution, when 19th-century English workers tried to halt the spread of mechanization by storming factories and destroying power looms.

Chinese policymakers are also visibly wrestling with how to encourage growth while preserving social and regime stability, which is the top priority for the Chinese Communist Party. In April, China stopped issuing new licenses for autonomous vehicles after dozens of robotaxis abruptly stranded passengers on the streets of Wuhan. That same month, a Chinese court ruled that companies cannot terminate employees just to replace them with A.I. systems. In June, a new employment five-year plan pledged to prevent large-scale unemployment risks and to use A.I. to promote job creation. A banon A.I. companions for minors in China is set to take effect in July.

Although China is no paragon, such actions have helped buoy the population’s feelings toward A.I. Around 84 percent of respondents in China said they were excited about A.I., according to a recent Stanford report. Meanwhile, American skepticism toward the technology remains high. Communities across the United States are fighting the construction of data centers. Parents worry about children forming unhealthy attachments to A.I. companions. Workers fear being replaced. Policymakers warn of national security vulnerabilities. Researchers debate catastrophic risks. These fears are not irrational. People are asking a simple question: Will A.I. make my life better, or make it worse?

The question is hard to answer because the benefits of the technology are unevenly distributed and can often feel overhyped. One reason is what some have called “jagged intelligence,” where A.I. fails at incredibly simple tasks even as it excels in specific areas. So when some in Silicon Valley predict an impending jobpocalypse, while others view the industry’s claims as overblown, it’s hardly surprising that the public mood around A.I. is darkening. In a Gallup survey from last year, 80 percent of American adults thought the government should regulate A.I., even if doing so means slower progress, a view that was shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. Even young Americans who historically embraced new technologies are angrier and more skeptical.

Dismissing A.I. entirely would be a mistake. The technology can help diagnose diseases, predict protein folding, improve farming, forecast disasters better, design new materials, accelerate scientific and drug discovery and power robots in dangerous environments to improve human safety (such as in space, firefighting and minefields).

Yet how technology spreads is never inevitable. If A.I. is viewed as benefiting the few at the expense of the majority, then the public will rage against the machine. And A.I. won’t be able to make our lives better in the long run if it cannot survive in the short term. The real challenge, then, isn’t whether the United States or China will build an overwhelming, insurmountable advantage over the other. It’s whether either can figure out how to realize the benefits of A.I. without ripping apart its social fabric. Neither has found the answer yet.

Silicon Valley tech executives and policymakers across the country are waking up to that fact. States have introduced dozens of bills this year to put safety and privacy guardrails around A.I. The Trump administration issued a new executive order that seeks to give the government more oversight over new models before they’re released to the public. Companies like OpenAI are starting to come around to the idea that strong safety rules can help reverse growing public opposition. But there is still no clear consensus on how the United States should move forward. We know big disruptions are coming, and they’re coming fast as A.I. capabilities advance faster than policy response. We need bigger ideas to fix what may soon break.

To get to the other end of the tightrope, we need radical and incremental solutions alike. Here’s one to start: a populist A.I. agenda that treats the technology as a public project. Just as NASA made space a national mission rather than a private one, the government should now do the same for A.I. to ensure that its benefits reach the public, not just the companies building it. Here are some concrete ways to do that:

One, treat some A.I. profits as a shared resource and distribute them directly to citizens. This can be in the form of a sovereign wealth fund, seeded by contributions from A.I. companies in the form of stock or cash. Prior models for this include Singapore’s Temasek, seeded in 1974 with equity in state-linked companies, and Australia’s Future Fund, which turned budget surpluses and government shares in a privatized telecom into a permanent endowment for future generations. Another format would be to reinvest A.I. profits into the younger generation, whose members risk being displaced before their careers even begin, and teach them how to use these tools. After all, the fruits of the age of A.I. are not the outcome of individual companies alone, but are built on the knowledge that society has accumulated over centuries.

Two, support public-interest A.I. models that the private sector might not be incentivized to build. Examples include models to help citizens navigate government services and benefits, to help them gain legal aid or to help educate their children. We strongly believe in the importance of open-source A.I., which anyone can freely use and modify. That would allow local governments, libraries, researchers, small businesses, nonprofits and independent developers to participate in building, owning, inspecting and adapting models for their community and privacy needs.

For the government and companies, this means expanding shared A.I. computing infrastructure, teaching the public how better to understand and use A.I. for its personal well-being, and funding genuinely open-source and safe American models. Companies working alone won’t get us there: the enormous cost of computing power pushes them toward serving customers who can pay the most. Some technologies need to become public infrastructure through expanded access and price reductions. Britain once nationalized electricity; the United States regulated railroads. We’ve done it before and can do it again.

Three, regulate one area that attracts bipartisan agreement: the way children and teens interact with A.I. Several bipartisan bills have been introduced that propose safeguards for minors, parental controls and penalties for platform violations. Let’s advance those. Absent regulations, industry is unlikely to police itself, as we’ve seen before in the age of social media.

Our society has navigated and absorbed major technological upheavals before, from the Industrial Revolution to the computer age. Those transitions endured politically because reformers and lawmakers built labor protections, social insurance, public schooling and antitrust law that helped broaden technology’s gains. This time around, many Americans have no faith that the benefits of A.I. will be distributed. It is up to policymakers and the companies building A.I. to change that.

A.I. must help people thrive, not merely enrich a handful of companies and leave others behind. If that doesn’t happen, the country will resist it, slow it and fight over it. That is how America loses its balance on the tightrope."

Opinion | We Must Address the Growing Rage Against the A.I. Machine - The New York Times

The Manhattan African Burial Ground Just Got DNA Tested — And the Results Are Shocking

 

The Manhattan African Burial Ground Just Got DNA Tested — And the Results Are Shocking

A $3.2 Trillion Deal-Making Frenzy Is Spurred by the A.I. Economy - The New York Times

A $3.2 Trillion Deal-Making Frenzy Is Spurred by the A.I. Economy

"This year’s boom includes the most spent on global deal-making in a six-month period in a decade. But questions persist about whether it can continue.

July 9, 2026Updated 11:52 a.m. ET

The frenzy has heavily favored large companies, with 44 deals announced in the first six months of this year that were larger than $10 billion.Karsten Moran for The New York Times

An ebullient stock market, huge bets on artificial intelligence and an open regulatory environment have fueled one of the biggest six-month booms in deal-making in years.

Through the end of June, there were about $3.2 trillion in global deals, a 45 percent jump from a year earlier, according to Dealogic, a data provider. That was the most spent on deal-making over a half-year period in at least a decade.

The frenzy heavily favored large companies, with 44 deals announced that were larger than $10 billion, including takeovers and large-scale fund-raising in the private markets. Those blockbusters pushed the overall value of deals higher even though the total number of transactions fell about 1 percent from last year, as companies with less financial firepower or those more vulnerable to geopolitical uncertainties stayed on sidelines.

Executives of many large companies, however, have brushed aside the uncertainties posed by tariffs and the war in the Middle East to pursue takeovers that are more likely to be approved by regulators under the Trump administration than they were during previous administrations.

Many companies “perceive they have a window in which to attempt to affect something transformational, and now is really the time to try to do it,” Matt McClure, a global co-head of investment banking at Goldman Sachs, said in an interview.

Bankers insist this time is different from previous booms, like the record-low-interest era of the Covid-19 pandemic, the leveraged buyouts of 2007 and the dot-com bubble in the 1990s.

The companies driving this year’s deal-making surge are among the world’s largest and best funded, and many of them are aiming to transform their business by doing big mergers, rather than making smaller acquisitions.

Some of this activity is propelled by a need to simply keep pace in an economy dominated by only a handful of giant corporations. Consider that companies need to be about twice as large to enter the S&P 500 as they did five years ago. Exxon Mobil, once the most valuable company in the United States, is about one-eighth the size of the largest of the so-called Magnificent Seven technology companies.

“The definition of scale keeps moving, so companies need to be bigger and bigger, and big companies need to do bigger and bigger deals to have an impact,” said Ben Wilson, a co-head of North America mergers and acquisitions at J.P. Morgan.

NextEra’s $118 billion deal for Dominion Energy, which was announced in May, would create a utility giant aimed at supplying the increasing amounts of electricity needed to power artificial intelligence. SpaceX’s $60 billion acquisition last month of Cursor, a start-up that makes code-writing software, is aimed at helping Elon Musk’s rocket company build its A.I. models.

Typically, companies are reluctant to take on big deals in times of turmoil. Disruptions to oil supplies because of the war with Iran and the White House’s open hostility toward America’s biggest trading partners in Europe show no signs of abating. Questions also persist around the A.I. build-out, such as the costs for computer chips, supply constraints and potential delays on when these A.I. companies might reap profits.

“What makes the current boom a little counterintuitive is it appears to be associated with maybe not unprecedented, but top-quartile-level uncertainty and volatility,’’ said Jonathan Knee, a Columbia Business School professor and senior adviser at the investment bank Evercore.

The deal activity has been a boon for banks, too, with details likely to emerge when they announce earnings next week. Bank of America expects its investment banking revenue in the latest quarter to be up 28 percent from a year earlier, while JPMorgan Chase expects a 10 percent increase, according to a research note from Jefferies.

Not every company has joined the party. In all, 21,727 deals were announced this year, down slightly from 21,997 at the same point last year. Some of that decline can be attributed to the challenges facing private equity. Companies owned by private equity firms made up 24 percent of the overall deal value, according to Dealogic, down from about 34 percent in 2024 through 2025. Many of these firms are grappling with the uncertain values of the software companies they acquired before A.I. posed a threat to them, making them difficult to sell.

“So far this year, it’s just not been quite at the pace the market originally anticipated,” Mr. McClure said.

Initial public offerings during the first half of the year were dominated by larger companies bent on powering the race for A.I. and those in defense technology.

Madison Air Solutions, a cooling company that serves data centers, raised $2.23 billion in an I.P.O., and Cerebras, a Silicon Valley maker of A.I. chips, raised $5.55 billion. And, of course, SpaceX raised more than $75 billion, in the largest-ever initial public offering.

These offerings helped boost the value of I.P.O.s in the United States to $155 billion, the most since 2021, when a flurry of so-called blank check vehicles stampeded into public markets.

Bankers say the door for other offerings related to A.I. remain open. SK Hynix, a South Korean memory chip maker, is set to raise $28 billion in a U.S. listing this week.

But the first weeks of trading for SpaceX shares have been volatile. While still above its I.P.O. price of $135 a share, SpaceX’s stock on Wednesday dipped below $150, where it opened in the frenzied first minutes of trading when it hit the market last month. It closed at $148 a share on Wednesday.

Other recent debutantes have seen their shares fall below their I.P.O. prices. They include Cerebras, as well as Fervo Energy and X-Energy, both of which aim to power data centers. About a third of companies that went public in the second quarter are below their I.P.O. price, according to data from Renaissance Capital, a research and advisory firm. Matt Kennedy, a senior strategist at Renaissance Capital, said those results were largely in line with how I.P.O.s had performed historically in their early months of trading.

“There are a number of examples of I.P.O.s generating a lot of initial hype, then fizzling out,” Mr. Kennedy said. “At the same time, other speculative bets are holding up.”

Questions about whether demand will ultimately justify enormous spending on A.I. continue to swirl over the markets, along with other uncertainties like the war in the Middle East and inflation. Shares of the Magnificent Seven helped lead the S&P 500through its best second quarter in six years, even as shares of those companies fell roughly 9 percent in June.

Still, Mr. Kennedy said, “I do think the A.I. theme will continue to drive activity through the end of the year.”

Lauren Hirsch is a Times reporter who covers deals and dealmakers in Wall Street and Washington."

A $3.2 Trillion Deal-Making Frenzy Is Spurred by the A.I. Economy - The New York Times

Apple Lost the AI Race

 

Apple Lost the AI Race

. THE HONEST truth about the Luna Ultra after using it for 30 days..