Warhammer 11th Edition has arrived with the Armageddon launch box, and although a new edition seems like the perfect way into the hobby, it’s a daunting prospect. What do you need to build your models? What do you need to play the game? I’ve tried to make it easy for you by scouring Amazon for some Prime Day deals to get started.

• View the full Amazon Prime Day sale

I’ve found deals on paints, brushes, Citadel plastic glue, gaming accessories and some models to complement the main starter set, whether you pick the bestial orks or the dogmatic Space Marines.

Obviously the Armageddon 11th Edition launch box set including 23 Space marines, 38 orks & rulebooks is the big-ticket item with $50 off, but I’d also recommend the Infernus Marines & Paints Set, which comes with starter paints and a paintbrush. It’s good value although there’s no discount: it’s a gentler introduction to the build and paint side of things, and easier on your wallet, too. I’ve also recommended cheaper, well-known brands like Army Painter to save you money.

Check out the deals below, or visit our Amazon Prime Day US live blog for more deals as we find them.

Amazon Prime Day Warhammer sale — top picks

Amazon Prime Day Warhammer sale

from the using-the-public’s-money-to-shortchange-the-public dept

There aren’t many governments out there actually trying to be more transparent. Every so often, a law gets passed that benefits the public more than its benefits the government, but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

California experienced one of these anomalies fairly recently. In 2019, a law was passed that finally made police misconduct records public records. They were no longer something simply buried in PD filing cabinets until they could be destroyed. They became presumptively public, putting the burden on the government to explain refusals to relinquish records.

The law enforcement wing of California’s government was less than pleased. As soon as it became apparent the bill had a good chance to become law, law enforcement agencies began destroying records. After its passage and enactment, the state’s Attorney General began pretending the law wasn’t retroactive and the state itself was sued by police unions. The law still stands and police agencies hoping to keep these records out of the public’s hands have been shut down repeatedly at multiple levels of the court system.

Now, the state is poised to take a big step backwards in terms of transparency, thanks to the efforts of a legislator whose bill doesn’t even have the support of her own party. In March, Assembly member Blanca Pacheco introduced a bill that would have erected a significant paywall for public records, with the obvious intent of deterring records requests.

After running into internal and external opposition, Pacheco performed a legislative head-fake:

Amid opposition from transparency advocates and public access concerns from her own Assembly colleagues, though, the Downey Democrat diluted her proposal to simply give governments more time to respond to records requests, a change that allowed the measure to sail through the Assembly in May. 

Now that it’s gotten over this initial legislative hurdle, Pacheco is turning her proposal back into the one she really wants — the one that couldn’t pass without being stripped of its objectionable clauses.

Now, she’s brought the controversial elements back — and they are even more restrictive than before, drawing fierce opposition from transparency advocates.

The latest version of her proposal, Assembly Bill 1821, is co-written by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties. It would allow government agencies to delay responding to certain requests and to charge $22 to $66 an hour to search for and review the records they deem are for “commercial use.” 

Government agencies could also take requests to court if they believe someone is asking for the records for a malicious reason. 

Advertisement

Pacheco says this is nothing more than some needed “minor amendments or minor tweaks” meant to prevent government agencies from being “inundated” by records requests, “especially” those “generated by artificial intelligence.”

But that’s just one of several explanations given by Pacheco. She also says the new fee structure is meant to prevent taxpayers from “subsidizing” public records requests made by commercial entities. She also claims several discussions with local governments prompted this effort, as well as stuff she learned while she was enjoying paid-for trips to multiple tourist destinations for the ostensible purpose of getting better at legislating.

The initiative originated from one of Pacheco’s many trips sponsored by special interest groups last year, her spokesperson, Alina Evans, told CalMatters in March. Last year, Pacheco reported receiving more than $45,000 in sponsored travel — the most of any California lawmaker — including a study tour in Spain, a golf tournament in Pebble Beach and a conference in Maui. When asked Wednesday, however, Pacheco said she did not remember which one inspired her measure and said the idea came from multiple conversations with local governments. 

While I can absolutely believe most government agencies would prefer to handle fewer public records requests, public records request laws are supposed to benefit the public that pays for all of this, not the agencies that are supposed to serve the public.

Pacheco claims these are minor tweaks. The mandatory fees ($22 to $66 an hour) and giving agencies more options to sue records requesters aren’t small adjustments. They’re changes that will lead to exactly what so many government agencies want: fewer requests, more opacity, and a whole lot of leeway when it comes to responding.

Pacheco’s measure would create barriers that would chill the public from filing requests, effectively gutting the state’s open records act and violating the spirit of Californians’ constitutional right to government information, transparency advocates argue. 

“The only way that there’s any government accountability is that people know what the government is doing,” said David Snyder, a former journalist and now the executive director of the First Amendment Coalition.

[…]

[C]alifornia would be the first state to explicitly allow agencies to sue for “malicious intent.” Requesters the court deems malicious would have to pay an hourly fee to obtain records to compensate agencies for their time. 

[…]

Advertisement

“It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability, as has already happened elsewhere in the country,” Snyder said.

The threat of a lawsuit alone would “chill requesters from submitting public requests,” said Shaila Nathu, a senior attorney with ACLU of Northern California, which also opposes the bill. 

Governments (including those in California) are already allowed to reject requests they deem “burdensome” or “vexatious.” They’ve always been able to go to court to justify refusals to release records. This addition gives California agencies a new offensive weapon in the war on transparency.

On top of this, the proposal would allow agencies to take however long they want to respond to requests. Most requests are now handled through online portals, but the 10-14 day timeline for request responses would now only apply to requests “made in person” or via email during “normal business hours.” It seems like a small thing, but in practice would allow agencies to ignore a large majority of records requests indefinitely.

The bill is still a few steps away from landing on the governor’s desk. But beyond a few people in government agencies who think the public has too much power, Pacheco seems to be on her own here. With any luck, it will remain that way and this terrible proposal will become something else that can be ignored indefinitely. But never underestimate the government’s constant trend towards opacity. It takes periodic resets to set it back on the road towards accountability. This is nothing more than Pacheco crafting an off-ramp, and being urged on (mostly secretly) by agencies who love the public’s money, but feel they owe nothing to the public in return for their paychecks.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, accountability, blanca pacheco, california, free speech, public access, public records, transparency

Save up to $700 on OLED TVs from popular brands, including LG, Samsung, and Sony, with these Prime Day deals.

Whether you’re looking to run an OLED TV as an external display for your Mac or want to swap out your existing living room TV to stream programming, there are numerous Prime Day OLED TV deals in effect this week.

Shop Prime Day TV deals

Save up to $700 on current and closeout models from LG, Samsung, and Sony, ranging from 48-inch panels to 77-inch sets.

LG OLED TV Prime Day deals

• LG 65-inch C5 OLED65C5PUA, 2025: $1,199 ($1,500 off)
• LG 48-inch C6 OLED48C6PUA, 2026: $1,399.99 ($200 off)
• LG 55-inch C6 OLED55C6PUA, 2026: $1,599.99 ($200 off)
• LG 65-inch C6 OLED65C6PUA, 2026: $1,999.99 ($700 off)
• LG 77-inch C6 OLED77C6HUP, 2026: $2,999.99 ($700 off)

Samsung OLED TV Prime Day discounts

Sony OLED TV Prime Day sale

You can also save on Paramount Plus and Apple TV with Prime Day streaming service deals to use with your new TV.

Slate, maker of the stripped-down EV pickup truck, found another way to simplify its product: the battery.

When the startup revealed its starting price on Wednesday — $24,950 before destination, taxes, and other fees — it also said it had changed its battery strategy, eliminating the optional 240-mile pack but bumping the standard pack from 150 miles to 205. 

How Slate pulled that off illustrates just how significantly the battery market in the U.S. has changed in the past four years.

Initially, the startup planned to use nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) cells. The chemistry is widely used in the automotive industry and favored for its energy density, which translates into longer range. But NMC is also expensive, mostly due to high nickel and cobalt prices.

More recently, automakers have begun to use another chemistry, lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP). Battery packs that use LFP are less energy dense but cheaper by about 40%, thanks in part to lower-cost ingredients like iron, one of the main cathode materials, which replaces nickel and cobalt.

There were good reasons why Slate, and other automakers, started with NMC. The LFP supply chain today is today concentrated in China. That wasn’t always the case — early U.S. battery startup A123 Systems was founded to commercialize the technology. But after a few missteps, it fell into bankruptcy and was bought in 2013 by a Chinese auto parts company. Since then, Chinese battery companies have embraced the chemistry and dominated production of LFP cells.

LFP’s foreign origin meant that, before last summer, EVs that used it wouldn’t qualify for a $7,500 tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act. Only batteries made of materials sourced domestically or from companies with which the U.S. had a free trade agreement would qualify. But when the One Big Beautiful Bill Act axed the tax credits, those concerns evaporated, as well. Chinese manufacturers were back in consideration. Slate said it is working with Hefei-based battery company Gotion to source the cells, which will be built at a factory in Illinois, according to InsideEVs.

The other reason automakers passed over LFP batteries was their limited range. Automakers selling into the U.S. market have prioritized range, though vehicles that can travel more than 300 miles on a charge tend to be pricey — pretty much the opposite of what Slate is going for.

In reality, most people don’t need that much range, and as charging networks have grown in size, reach, and speed, range anxiety is gradually waning. While LFP cells will never match NMC in energy density, modern variations of the chemistry have helped close the gap. Ford, GM, Rivian, and Tesla all offer models that use LFP cells.

The industry’s embrace of LFP cells has also coincided with its transition to cell-to-pack technology, which Slate is using to build its battery packs.

Previously, when automakers assembled a battery pack, they first loaded cells into modules, which were then loaded into the pack. That setup allowed them to use pouch cells, which are cheaper and lighter. But over time, they realized the module approach canceled out the cost and weight savings the pouch cells offered. Though some EVs still use modules, the industry is moving toward cell-to-pack construction, in which rigid batteries, either prismatic or cylindrical, are loaded directly into the pack itself. 

Cell-to-pack trims manufacturing steps and boosts volumetric energy density, a helpful trait for a small EV like the Slate truck. Plus, LFP cells can be charged to 100% with fewer concerns about degradation than NMC, meaning drivers can use the full pack on a daily basis.

While there was probably a moment when Slate’s leadership had to green-light the switch from NMC to LFP, the momentum toward that decision had been building for years. LFP won’t take over the entire market — automakers like GM are betting on an entirely different chemistry — but its combination of low cost and decent range make LFP an obvious choice for what will be the cheapest EV in the U.S. 

Light from a galaxy that lived just 1.4 billion years after the Big Bang traveled more than 12 billion years to reach us. Astronomers examining long Hubble exposures of a deep sky field spotted something they had not expected to see at such an early time. The galaxy, cataloged MXDFz4.4, sent out ultraviolet radiation strong enough to change the gas in its immediate surroundings from opaque to clear.

This object existed at the tail end of a long period when neutral hydrogen gas filled space and blocked energetic light. MXDFz4.4 sits in the MUSE eXtremely Deep Field, a region already studied by several telescopes. Hubble’s visible-light images captured the galaxy’s output after cosmic expansion stretched its original ultraviolet light into wavelengths the telescope could record.

LEGO Icons NASA Artemis Space Launch System – DIY Rocket Model Building Set for Adults, Ages 18+ – Gifts…

• NASA rocket model kit – Launch into a creative project with the LEGO Icons NASA Artemis Space Launch System model building project for adult space…
• What’s in the box? – This creative building set includes everything you need to craft a multistage rocket with 2 solid-fuel boosters, an Orion…
• Features and Functions – This NASA-themed rocket model features retractable launch tower umbilicals, rocket support and crew bridge, detachable…

The galaxy itself measures roughly 100 times smaller in area than the Milky Way yet forms stars about 10 times faster. Most of that activity happened in tight clusters of young, massive stars only a few million years old. Those stars produced intense radiation that broke apart hydrogen atoms in the surrounding gas. As the gas ionized and thinned, between 50 and 100 percent of the ionizing light escaped the galaxy and its immediate neighborhood.

Combined Hubble and Webb photos show the galaxy as part of a dense field that includes thousands of other distant objects. Colors in the composite indicate areas where light broke free and gas cleared. Instead of a continuous production, the power came from bursts of star formation. Short-lived big stars most likely exploded, causing further holes in the remaining gas.

The discovery, according to lead author Ilias Goovaerts of the Space Telescope Science Institute, was previously thought to be impossible. Hubble not only captured the departing light, but also identified the concentrated young stars driving the alteration. Co-author Marc Rafelski pointed out that astronomers were already aware of the existence of many galaxies at the time. Prior to MXDFz4.4, no one has demonstrated unambiguous evidence of ionizing photons escaping.

Data from the James Webb Space Telescope provided information about the galaxy’s total mass and the evolution of its oldest stars. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope helped determine its exact distance and timing. Together, the three facilities demonstrated how a single tiny system may influence conditions directly around it during a pivotal shift in cosmic history. The discovery provides the first direct evidence of an individual galaxy changing its surrounding gas in this manner. Previous detections of similar fleeing light occurred later in time, around 1.6 billion years after the Big Bang or more. MXDFz4.4 brings the record closer to the time when the cosmos as a whole went from murky to clear.

The air will run thick with nostalgia as Scotland face Brazil at the FIFA World Cup 2026, with both teams aiming to book their place in the knockout stage – and you can live stream the game around the world for free.

Mention this fixture to members of the Tartan Army and they will immediately go dewy-eyed, as they recall Scotland’s battles with Brazil at World Cups of yore. This is the Scots’ fifth meeting with A Selecao at the tournament – they have not played any other country more than twice – but their finals record against the five-time winners is not the best, with a 0-0 draw in 1974 followed by defeats in 1982, 1990 and 1998. It falls on Steve Clarke’s Class of 2026 to change the narrative in Miami, where they may need a point to qualify for the knockout stage following their 1-0 defeat by Morocco last weekend. Finish third, and it’s calculators out as one of the eight best records. If they do that, they will become the first Scotland side in history to progress beyond the group stage of a major tournament.

If you’ve been waiting for ASUS’s latest RTX 50-series laptops to arrive in India, we have some great news. ASUS has finally announced the availability of its newest premium gaming and creator laptops in the country, headlined by the flagship ROG Zephyrus Duo. The lineup also includes refreshed versions of the Zephyrus G14 and G16, the TUF Gaming A14, and the creator-focused ProArt PZ14. The new machines are powered by the latest Intel Core Ultra, AMD Ryzen AI, and Snapdragon X processors, paired with NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 50-series GPUs. ASUS is also leaning heavily into AI this year, with some models offering dedicated NPUs capable of delivering up to 80 TOPS of AI performance.

The Zyphyrus Lineup

The most interesting laptop in the lineup is undoubtedly the ROG Zephyrus Duo. ASUS describes it as its most advanced gaming and creator laptop yet, and it’s easy to see why. The machine features dual 16-inch 3K OLED Nebula touch displays, giving users significantly more screen real estate for multitasking, streaming, video editing, or keeping multiple applications open while gaming.

Under the hood, the laptop can be configured with up to an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 GPU and Intel Core Ultra processors. ASUS has also included its ROG Intelligent Cooling system to help keep temperatures under control during long gaming or rendering sessions.

For users who want flagship performance without carrying around a massive gaming laptop, ASUS is also bringing the latest Zephyrus G14 and G16 to India. Both laptops feature premium lightweight designs, OLED Nebula displays, and NVIDIA RTX 50-series graphics. The G14 gets a 73Wh battery, while the larger G16 bumps that up to 90Wh. ASUS says the machines are designed for users who want a single laptop for gaming, content creation, and everyday work without sacrificing portability.

TUF Gaming A14 & ProArt PZ14

The TUF Gaming A14 targets gamers and students who need something more portable than a traditional gaming laptop. Weighing just 1.46kg, the laptop combines AMD Ryzen AI processors with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 graphics. ASUS has also retained the military-grade durability the TUF series is known for, making it a more rugged alternative to the Zephyrus lineup.

Meanwhile, the ProArt PZ14 caters to creators looking for a highly portable AI PC. The device features a detachable Bluetooth keyboard and a 2-in-1 design, allowing it to function as both a laptop and a tablet. It runs on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X2 Elite processor and includes a 14-inch 3K ASUS Lumina Pro OLED display. At just 0.79kg, it’s easily the lightest device in the lineup. ASUS is also positioning it as an AI-focused machine, thanks to support for up to 80 TOPS of AI performance.

Price and Availability

The new ASUS laptops are now available across ASUS Exclusive Stores, ROG Stores, the ASUS eShop, Amazon, Flipkart, Reliance Digital, Croma, Vijay Sales, and other authorized retail partners. Pricing starts at ₹1,99,990 for the TUF Gaming A14 and goes all the way up to ₹6,99,990 for the top-end Zephyrus Duo with RTX 5090 graphics. ASUS is also offering No Cost EMI options through ASUS Easy Pay for up to 18 months, with monthly payments starting at ₹11,111.

OS PLATFORMS

Maybe sometimes users know best

OPINION On June 24, 2021, Microsoft announced Windows 11, unveiling a new and controversial operating system. Five years on, how has that worked out for you, Redmond?

Windows 11 has always been a problem child for Microsoft. It was announced in June 2021 and became generally available on October 5 that year, while much of its customer base was still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, The Register called it pointless rather than a point release of Microsoft’s flagship operating system.

Why? Because Windows 10 was more than adequate. Microsoft’s apology for the Windows 8.x era was… fine. It mostly worked without difficulty. It lacked the user-experience missteps of its predecessors and was an architectural step up from Windows 7. And, most importantly, the operating system didn’t trip up a user’s workflow.

There is an old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but Microsoft set to work fixing Windows 10 regardless, and the result was Windows 11.

The user experience has irked users ever since. Did you like being able to move the taskbar around in Windows 10? Tough – in Windows 11, you’ll have to learn to love where Microsoft stuck it. How about the Start Menu? Again, Microsoft knew best and redesigned it.

In the last year, Microsoft appears to have realized that its actions have alienated users and promised to restore eliminated user interface elements, such as the movable taskbar. It hasn’t, however, gone back on another Windows 11 feature – the infamous hardware requirements.

While Windows 11 contained plenty of software elements to annoy users, it was the company’s decision, on security grounds, to render hardware perfectly capable of running the operating system obsolete at a stroke that really angered users. Even hardware (including some of the company’s own) that was still on sale at the time wouldn’t work. The company demanded TPM 2.0 and warned that anything older than an eighth generation Intel CPU (or equivalent) would not make the cut.

Then and now, the decision carries an arbitrary air, particularly as several workarounds emerged, revealing the requirements to be the technically unnecessary decisions they were.

More than anything, Microsoft’s hardware requirements slowed the operating system’s adoption, as hardware that ran Windows 10 perfectly well was rendered obsolete overnight.

In the end, it took until 2025 for Windows 11 to overtake its predecessor in market share, and until 2026 for the gap to widen. Much of the change in market share is likely due to hardware replacement cycles and the end of mainstream support for Windows 10 on October 14, 2025.

Microsoft’s operating systems have followed a set pattern over the years. Windows XP was good, Windows Vista was not. Windows 7 was good, Windows 8.x was not. Windows 10 – good. Windows 11 – oh dear, it seems it was always destined to be a bit of a duffer, even without Microsoft loading it with ads and AI.

While hindsight has made Windows 10 seem rather good, retrospectives are unlikely to be so kind to Windows 11, which marked an era in which Microsoft took its eye off the desktop to focus on shinier, AI-related things. Microsoft has already dropped Copilot branding from products like Notepad, an acknowledgment that the assistant is not the welcome pal in every place it is forced into. The same could be said for Windows 11, which has become a byword for iffy quality and bad management decisions.

Based on the last five years of Windows 11, Windows 12 should be a beacon of light. Right? ®

The Apple Watch is reigning king among fitness trackers, but there’s a big enough gap in the market for Apple to release a ring-style tracker, even though it probably won’t.

I hate the Apple Watch. I know, I know, heresy, but I do.

And I don’t even hate it for a singular reason. I hate it for a multitude of reasons, which is impressive, because I’ve bought three in my lifetime.

I hate the way the Apple Watch looks. It’s too chunky on my delicate little bird-wrists and, regardless of the band I choose, it managed to ruin every non-gym outfit I ever wore it with.

It’s also physically uncomfortable as all get out. I’m not entirely sure how everyone else here manages to wear theirs at the desk.

I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t look cool.

I’m a bit more flexible than I should be, so as a result, I needed to wear my watch “upside down” to avoid summoning Siri every time I ride my bike, do a push-up, or push open a door. It also pinches the ever-loving crap out of my inner wrist, eventually leading to a bruise that horrifies everyone who’s ever seen it.

I’m willing to bet that some of this may be my faulty genetics. Sure, it’s not Apple’s fault, but it’s still something I have to live with.

But the worst part about the Apple Watch? It is, effectively, another screen vying for my attention.

I didn’t know this until I bought my first Apple Watch and wore it for a month, but attaching a screen directly to my body is not ideal. I am not built for a screen I can’t opt out of.

I don’t think I’m alone in this, either. Even with going in and manually disabling all but the barebones notifications, it doesn’t seem to be enough.

It always goes something like this:

There’s a buzz when my phone rings or I get a text. I look at the screen, despite the fact that I’ve already reached for my phone or looked at my desktop screen. Now I’m interfacing with my Apple Watch. I’m touching the screen for some reason, now I’m scrolling through the information there.

I’m holding my iPhone, sitting in front of my iMac, and looking at my Apple Watch. I’m suddenly a caricature of a tech-addicted millennial in a political comic.

If this sounds extreme, don’t worry, it is. But this is also just how I react to the constant reminder that I’m available to everyone and every app in my life at all times. I am not built for this sort of thing.

So, into the box, and onto the electronic bay, my Apple Watch went. Goodbye, psychological torture device.

I already hear you guys typing your comments, saying, “Well, then don’t wear an Apple Watch. And, for the love of all things holy, stop buying them!”

And yes, I agree! Except there’s one problem:

I actually like the Apple Watch.

In theory.

Hello, midlife crisis.

Before we get started here, I’d like to point out that I am not an athlete. For years, I’d argue that I was actually the opposite of an athlete in pretty much every way you could be.

However, in 2023, I got my first bike after not having one since 2005. Suddenly, I was doing things like “going outside,” “going to the gym,” and “willingly participating in physical activity instead of aimlessly walking around my city in an effort to stave off the inevitable decay of my corporeal form.”

All that to say, I wasn’t completely sedentary before 2023, but I definitely wasn’t prioritizing physical activity.

Three years later, I now hit the gym four or five times a week, weather permitting. Also, weather permitting, I’ll log about a hundred miles on my bike in the same timeframe.

This year I’ve started hiking. I’ve managed to hike about 20 miles, which is impressive solely because of the hostile weather the Great Lakes region has had to endure this year.

I enjoy going hiking on one of the rare days that the weather allows it.

I’m pretty proud of how much I’ve changed in the last three years. I don’t actually think this is a midlife crisis, for the record, I think I just got a bike and could do more things.

That being said, I’ve done a lot in the last three years, and I like seeing how I can improve. Currently, my method for tracking that improvement is a bunch of different apps and relying on the basic features of my iPhone.

If only there were a way to track this data in a single device. And could you imagine if it were integrated with Apple’s ecosystem nicely?

Oh, wait. There is.

And I sold it on eBay. Twice, actually.

Damn it.

Understanding the follies of fitness trackers

Fitness tracking is, as many health professionals will tell you, not an exact science. Fitness trackers themselves aren’t infallible, and they’re far less accurate than the manufacturers would lead you to believe.

There are scenarios in which fitness trackers are not actually useful. Caloric burn, or more accurately, energy expenditure, is probably the most well-known place where fitness trackers come up short.

If you got an Apple Watch to hit a target amount of calories burned in a day, I’ve got some bad news for you: it doesn’t actually have any idea how many calories you’ve burned.

Most studies say the Apple Watch is accurate within an 18% to 40% range. You know what else is probably accurate within a 40% range?

Me. I can probably guess how many calories I’ve burned going on a one-hour-long hike at a moderate pace, and I’d probably be within 40% of the actual number.

A lot of this is purely human biology. A fitness tracker can make an educated guess, but it is effectively a form of digital divination, reading tea leaves and spitting out something fact-adjacent.

Step tracking is another thing that is difficult for a tracker to measure. A “step” is not a standardized unit of measurement or a standardized movement across all bodies.

It’s wild that we assume a fitness tracker could accurately guess the steps of both shuffling elderly and elite college athletes. Steps taken in crowded areas will be measured differently from those done on uneven ground while jogging on a wilderness scale.

The Apple Watch is markedly better at tracking steps than energy expenditure. According to an Ole Miss meta study, the Apple Watch is within a 10% of the actual number of steps taken, at least in a lab setting.

So if they’re not useful for tracking activity, why would we want to use them? Or, more specifically, why do I want one?

Getting trendy with it

While fitness trackers might not track things perfectly, they are actually quite good at tracking things over time. For the average person, and even for most lower-level athletes, you don’t actually need hard numbers to track your progress.

What you need is trends over time.

For example, let’s say your Apple Watch move goal is 350 calories. If you’re hitting that consistently, it doesn’t actually matter what the number of calories burned was.

Eventually, that goal may increase, either because you increased it or the Apple Watch decided it needed to be higher. If you continue to meet or exceed that goal, you’ve got documentation that you’re trending in a positive direction.

Same with exercise minutes. Maybe you started with a modest goal of 10 minutes a day, but over time you began stretching that to 12, then 15, then 20.

Views of Trends and Highlights in Health for iOS

Advertisement

Similarly, you can also use downward trends to keep an eye on your health. Maybe you notice you start taking fewer steps, suggesting you’re not getting enough movement in.

Maybe your VO2 starts dropping steadily below your baseline in the days before you become ill. This is genuinely beneficial information to have.

And the only way you can track those trends is by consistently wearing a fitness tracker.

Bringing it full circle

I know a lot of people love the Apple Watch, and they’re great at wearing it consistently. And I’m super happy for them.

I’m not one of those people. And judging by the fact that Oura’s done well enough for itself to release the fifth iteration of its tracking ring, there’s a solid market for non-wrist-based trackers.

And once upon a time, Apple was rumored to be working on such a device. Though if you’ve been around the block a couple of times, you know that patents effectively mean nothing in terms of what will or won’t make it to market.

I would love an Apple Ring were one to ever actually materialize, provided Apple didn’t decide that it needed to be another “everything” device like the Apple Watch.

Render of a possible Apple Ring

Advertisement

I would wear the ring every day. I want my sleep metrics, I want to know my heart rate during an intense biking session. I’d like to know what it thinks my average step counts are, so I can work on getting that number higher.

Wearing a ring is pretty set-and-forget as far as activities go. I used to wear my second-generation Oura ring all the time before the battery life finally started degrading to the point of needing to be charged daily.

For the record, I appreciate what Oura is doing, but I still crave the deep Apple ecosystem integration. I want to close my rings, I just want to do it sans Apple Watch.

I really want this stupid ring to exist. Which, frankly, sucks, because I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon.

I think Apple’s figured out exactly where it wants to be vis-a-vis the whole device roadmap for the next five years.

We just got the MacBook Neo, and the iPhone Fold is coming out at some point. I suspect that Apple’s HomePod-with-a-Screen will make an appearance at some point in the next year or two.

Apple’s going to buckle down and come to market with some sort of AR glasses situation, much to my chagrin.

I think if Apple made a fitness ring, it would entirely upset the wearable market again. I think it would sell, and I think it would sell incredibly well.

I could see it doing better than AirPods, frankly.

And maybe that’s another reason Apple won’t do it. Apple wants you to buy an Apple Watch.

The Apple Watch comes with accessories you can swap out, and third-party developers make and, crucially, sell, apps for it. You only have to produce an Apple Watch in a few different sizes, whereas an Apple Ring would probably need to come in at least eight sizes.

And the Apple Ring would most assuredly cut into the Apple Watch market. Considering how hard Apple pushes the Apple Watch, I can’t see it wanting to split people off for what it may view internally as a less worthwhile product.

So, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

For now, I suppose I’ll continue to use my four separate apps to track the various workouts I do. Maybe someone else will come to market with a ring that is just as good as the Apple Ring could be.

Maybe I’ll eventually cave and buy an Oura Ring 5.

Either way, I’m still going to hope Apple has a change of heart and finds a way to make the fitness tracker of my dreams a reality. I think it’d be way better than the stupid Pixar lamp it’s allegedly got in the works, at any rate.