It’s been two years since Google burst into the smartwatch market, and that means we’ve seen a few upgrades since Google launched the very first Google Pixel Watch. If you’re still using that watch, you may wonder if now is the time to upgrade and whether the third-generation Pixel Watch 3 is worth it. Or you may be getting your first smartwatch and considering buying either a cheap first-generation Pixel Watch or the latest and greatest of Google’s wearables.

Choosing between these two devices is surprisingly easy. Sometimes, the newest is the best, and this is the case with the Pixel Watch 3. However, there’s a significant price difference, so is the Pixel Watch still worth buying? Let’s examine the differences to help determine which you should pick, and explain why now is the best time to upgrade from the original Pixel Watch.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Google Pixel Watch: specs

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: design and display

Put the Pixel Watch 3 and Pixel Watch alongside each other, and aside from the size, it’s difficult to tell the difference. Google’s design language hasn’t changed a huge amount in three generations, and the minimalist look is attractive and works with most outfits.

The Pixel Watch 3 is the first of Google’s smartwatches to come in two sizes. The smaller 41mm size is identical to the original but 5 grams lighter, while the bigger 45mm version is just 1 gram heavier than the original. The larger size is ideal if you have bigger wrists or find the original Pixel Watch too small for daily use.

The new AMOLED-LTPO display gives the Pixel Watch 3 display a big upgrade over previous generations. Both sizes get the upgrade, which offers a variable refresh rate of 60Hz and shrunken bezels to maximize the screen real estate.

The display represents a significant upgrade in legibility, but otherwise, these two watches share the same physical traits. Domed Gorilla Glass displays provide protection, a rotating bezel allows you to scroll and select — a feature sorely missing from the new Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra — and the same lug-style watch band system lets any Pixel Watch band work with the third-generation model.

Each watch has the same 5ATM water resistance, which provides protection when submerged up to 500 meters, and a suite of sensors on the rear. The Pixel Watch 3’s sensors are improved over the original’s, and they have a different design, but otherwise, these two watches share many similarities.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: health, fitness, sensors

The Pixel Watch 3 shares the same sensors as last year’s Pixel Watch 2, which saw Google improve the accuracy of the data collected. The heart rate sensor is one of the most accurate on any smartwatch and one of the many hardware sensors that are improved over the original.

The Pixel Watch 3 adds a thermometer and skin conductance sensors, which provide valuable insights into your skin temperature while asleep and are used for cycle tracking. There’s also a new light sensor, barometer, gyroscope, and the pulse oximeter used for the new Loss of Pulse Detection feature.

Advertisement

This feature is designed to get you help when you need it most. Most smartwatches offer a fall detection feature that will get you emergency help if you have a fall, but Loss of Pulse Detection takes things much further. If your Pixel Watch 3 fails to detect a pulse, it’ll undergo a further check to rule out a false negative and, failing that, contact emergency services. It’s only available in certain EU countries, but it’s a worthy reason to upgrade to the Pixel Watch 3.

The Pixel Watch 3 also adds new Cardio Load and Target Load features, a Daily Readiness score, and a Morning Briefing that gives you pertinent information on your health and sleep. The two Load features are designed to track your heart’s performance over the day (and longer) and give you a numerical understanding of your cardiac function. The Target Load feature then sets a daily goal to aspire to, ensuring you won’t overtrain or undertrain.

All of this information is presented in the Fitbit Premium app. Certain features, like the Daily Readiness score, required a Fitbit Premium subscription, but now all users get it included. The Pixel Watch 3 comes with six months of Fitbit Premium for free — just like the original — after which the subscription costs $10 per month or $80 per year.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: two versions of the same platform

The Pixel Watch 3 offers significantly more than the original, including hardware improvements and useful wellness features in Wear OS 5. Many of these are powered by Google AI, which analyzes and provides recommendations on achieving and surpassing your goals.

There are also unique features that only work when the Pixel Watch 3 is used alongside a Pixel phone. For example, if you have the Pixel 9 Pro or Pixel 9 Pro XL, you can use the Pixel Watch 3 to control the camera. You can also use it to control Google TV, letting you change volume, inputs, and virtually everything else from your watch.

You can also see your Nest Cam feed on the tiny screen and either respond using the microphone or send a canned response. Then, there are features like call screening and a smart recorder that can record and analyze audio using AI in real time. There are many Pixel Watch 3 features that will delight anyone who upgrades.

The original Pixel Watch is far more limited. It runs Wear OS 3.5 and offers a fairly standard introduction to the Pixel Watch experience. Many of the Pixel Watch 3 improvements launched on the Pixel Watch 2, and while some of these may eventually come to the original, some will likely remain exclusive to Google’s newer models.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: battery and charging

One of our biggest complaints about the first Pixel Watch was its battery life. Simply put, it’s not very good and requires recharging more than once per day. The Pixel Watch 3 solves these problems with a more efficient chipset, a larger battery, and improvements in the operating system.

The Pixel Watch has a 294mAh battery, while the Pixel Watch 3 has a larger 307mAh battery in the 41mm model and a 420mAh battery in the 45mm. The Exynos 9110 processor in the Pixel Watch offers far less efficiency than the Snapdragon SW5100 powering the Pixel Watch 3.

Advertisement

Our Pixel Watch 3 review found that the battery life on Google’s latest smartwatch is exceptional and routinely exceeds Google’s own estimates. That’s with the always-on display enabled, tracking multiple workouts and sleep overnight, and receiving notifications throughout the day when paired with the Pixel 9 Pro. Simply put, the battery life has been very impressive and is one of the best reasons to upgrade from the original.

This means you can expect all-day battery life of around 24 hours with the Always On display turned on or up to 36 hours with the Battery Saver mode enabled. Both are large improvements over the original Pixel Watch, which requires recharging to last a full day.

The Pixel Watch 3 is also vastly improved when it comes to charging. The 41mm is rated as recharging to 50% in just 24 minutes and reaching 85% in 35 minutes, while the 45mm is slightly slower at 28 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively. We found that it charges from 12% to 62% in 30 minutes, and a full charge takes just over an hour, but the fast charging is great for those days when you’ve been using it heavily.

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: price, availability, colors

The Pixel Watch 3 is available now with a starting price of $349, while the original Pixel Watch launched at a similar price and is now available for just under $200. The price difference is significant, but the Pixel Watch 3 represents much better value despite the higher price.

If you want the Pixel Watch 3 in the 41mm size, the Bluetooth-only model is $349, while the LTE version is $449. For the larger size, add $50 to both of those prices.

The Pixel Watch 3 comes in a choice of colors. If you buy the 41mm model, you can choose from Polished Silver, Matte Black, or Champagne Gold, while the larger model ditches the gold option in favor of a more neutral Hazel color. There is a choice of bands, including a striking new Rose Quartz option that matches the colors of Google’s latest phones.

Advertisement

Google Pixel Watch 3 vs. Pixel Watch: verdict

If you have the original Pixel Watch, there’s never been a better time to upgrade. The Pixel Watch 3 offers everything you need from a smartwatch and is one of the most stylish options on our best smartwatch list. Crucially, it also adds features that will make your life easier and potentially even save it one day. If you’re considering which to buy and don’t currently have a Pixel Watch, it’s worth first looking at the Pixel Watch 3.

It is Google’s best smartwatch, but it costs double the original. If budget is a concern, the first Pixel Watch is a decent choice, but keep in mind that there are other smartwatches from the same era that are much better, like the Samsung Galaxy Watch 5. If you’d rather stay with Google, then we’d recommend buying the Pixel Watch 2, which is just $70 more, but a much better smartwatch.

However, if you can stretch your budget or snag a good deal, our Pixel Watch 3 review found that it’s the Google smartwatch we have been waiting for. It’s the best that Google offers and one of the best smartwatches you can buy in 2024. The original Pixel Watch still has some value, but given the vast improvements in the third generation, there’s no doubt that the Pixel Watch 3 is the better one to buy.

Palworld was once one of gaming’s biggest hits thanks to its blend of Pokémon-like gameplay elements mixed with survival and crafting mechanics, but it was perhaps only a matter of time before Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a lawsuit against the game’s developers. That’s exactly what’s happening as Nintendo officially announced that together with The Pokémon Company it’s filing a lawsuit against Pocketpair.

Palworld saw huge success following its early access launch having sold nearly 5 million copies in just a few days. And it’s this kind of success that seems to have drawn Nintendo’s ire. The possibility of a lawsuit was looming well before now. However, it was also suspected that Nintendo may just let the whole thing go. After all, the game launched in January and it’s been 9 months. Pocketpair at one point also said that it had the game put through a few legal reviews and no issues were found.

But Nintendo seems to have found something, as its lawsuit states that Pocketpair is infringing on multiple patents. This lawsuit also shouldn’t come as a huge surprise, as The Pokémon Company confirmed back in January that it intended to investigate Palworld.

The Nintendo lawsuit against Palworld deve Pocketpair doesn’t mention specifics

While Nintendo has confirmed it’s filing a lawsuit against Pocketpair, the statement about the lawsuit doesn’t mention any specific details. As of right now, Nintendo isn’t saying what patents Pocketpair is infringing. However, it’s likely that information will come out in due time. Provided this lawsuit goes to court and the case proceeds.

So far the only thing Nintendo has said is that its lawsuit is seeking an injunction against Pocketpair for these infringements. However, no information is given in terms of what it’s actually seeking as an end result. “Nintendo Co., Ltd. (HQ: Kyoto, Minami-ku, Japan; Representative Director and President: Shuntaro Furukawa, “Nintendo” hereafter), together with The Pokémon Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court against Pocketpair, Inc. (HQ: 2-10-2 Higashigotanda, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, “Defendant” hereafter) on September 18, 2024.

This lawsuit seeks an injunction against infringement and compensation for damages on the grounds that Palworld, a game developed and released by the Defendant, infringes multiple patent rights. Nintendo will continue to take necessary actions against any infringement of its intellectual property rights including the Nintendo brand itself, to protect the intellectual properties it has worked hard to establish over the years,” the statement reads.

Pocketpair has responded to the lawsuit

Following Nintendo’s statement, Pocketpair has issued its own statement in response to the lawsuit. Stating that at this time, it’s “unaware of the specific patents” that it’s accused of infringing. The developer also says that it “hasn’t been notified of such details.”

Pocketpair is a small indie dev based in Tokyo, Japan. So it’s likely an easy target for Nintendo given the size of the studio and the success of its game. Pocketpair says it will do everything it can to ensure that indie devs are not hindered or discouraged from pursuing their creative ideas. This might suggest that Pocketpair fully intends to fight this lawsuit. As it believes it hasn’t infringed on any of Nintendo or The Pokémon Company’s patents.

Palworld was launched on January 19, 2024, and was made available to play via GeForce NOW back on May 16.

Cast your mind back to 2019, when by the idea of terrorizing a quaint English village as a loud, annoying goose. , but it was fairly short and left me wanting more. In another universe, a TV adaptation would have happened already. While that didn’t quite pan out here, we do have a funny proof-of-concept to enjoy.

House House, the game’s developer, a “proof-of-concept for a hypothetical Untitled Goose Programme” on its YouTube channel on Friday. The studio created the short with Playdate maker and Untitled Goose Game publisher Panic and animation house Chromosphere Studio. It’s a great four-minute clip that’s well worth your time. It shows a goose bullying a journalist and groundskeeper during a TV interview. The art style is lovely, the Wallace and Gromit-esque humor is on point and the goose is just as much of a jerk as the one in the game.

Sadly, House House says that the show didn’t gain traction and those involved put the idea on the shelf. But at least we get this very amusing video out of it. If nothing else, it reminded me that I need to play the Panic-published , which seems

“Normally when there are 30 shots in the game, it is the United States with about 25 of ’em. Not today!”

It wasn’t just the ESPN commentator who was shocked.

Heather O’Reilly had scored the game’s final goal, dragging world number ones and two-time champions United States to a 2-2 draw in their opening match at the 2007 Women’s World Cup.

O’Reilly wasn’t surprised by the scoreline though. Or how evenly-fought the game was. She knew it would be tough.

Instead, as the final whistle blew, it was the attitude of the US’s opponents, who saw a chance missed, rather than a point gained, that struck her.

“I remember North Korea seeming disappointed,” says O’Reilly.

“Their body language seemed to say ‘oh my gosh, we were so close to taking down the giant’.”

North Korea is the world’s most isolated country, a state based around the infallibility of Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un and a deep suspicion of the outside world.

Yet, despite living standards being well behind most other nations, North Korea has been one of the strongest female football nations on the planet.

When they took on the United States in 2007, they were ranked fifth in the world and amid a run of three Asian titles in the space of a decade.

Their record at youth level is even better. In 2016, they won the U20 Women’s World Cup, defeating Spain, the United States and France in the knockout rounds. That same year, their under-17 team also lifted their age-grade World Cup.

“The game in 2007 was challenging, really super hard,” remembers O’Reilly of her meeting with North Korea’s senior side. “It was hard to get the ball off them, they were buzzing around, very quick.”

There was another challenge though, one that was unique to North Korea.

“It was just such a cloud of uncertainty,” says O’Reilly. “The film we had on them was very limited, even by the standard of the times.

“Every time we played North Korea, it was always a mystery.”

The mystery now is, after a doping controversy and a four-year absence from international football, can North Korea’s women be a force once again?

The IPO market has not roared back in 2024 as many investors hoped it would — not yet, at least. Elevated interest rates (this week’s 50 bps rate cut notwithstanding) and uncertainty related to the U.S. election have prompted many companies to stay private and wait for better market conditions.

But a handful of companies did go public this spring. Enterprise rewards platform Ibotta, which builds the backend rewards program infrastructure for enterprise clients like Walmart and Exxon, was one of them, debuting on the NYSE on April 18. Its IPO priced above its initial price range at $88 a share and debuted at $117 a share. It’s currently trading at $63 a share with a $1.7 billion market cap.

Ibotta’s CEO, Bryan Leach, told TechCrunch that five months after the IPO, he doesn’t regret taking his company public this year. Going public requires months of planning, and he thinks companies trying to time the market are making a “huge mistake.”

“Who knows what the [Federal Reserve] will do?” Leach said. “[Bankers say] it’s always better to wait, but you never know what will happen when you wait. At the end of the day, it’s not a destination, it’s a phase.”

Numerous companies that were expected to go public in 2022 or 2023 are still waiting on the sidelines. Many of these companies are sitting on large valuations that they gained from funding rounds during the boom days of 2021 and they would have to suffer a haircut to go public. There were 310 IPOs in the U.S. in 2021, according to PitchBook data. This has dropped sharply since. There were 80 in 2022, 85 in 2023 and 37 through the first half of 2024.

Leach admitted that some people consider the fact that Ibotta’s stock has dropped nearly 50% since its IPO as a sign that going public at this time wasn’t the right decision, or they might say that the company should have waited. Still, he feels it is too early to draw such conclusions, pointing to how Instacart’s stock is now trading close to its debut price — it hit a 52-week high today — a year after its IPO.

“Things are going great,” Leach said. “We are the largest tech IPO in Colorado history. The stock has gone way up, and gone down, and that sort of settles in over the course of the year. From a company perspective, we’ve been pleasantly surprised by how much value we got out of being a public company.”

Public companies also have an air of legitimacy around them, and Leach said that leverage is useful when it comes to nabbing potential enterprise customers. He said the company’s recent deal with Instacart may not have happened if Ibotta were still private.

“They trust us,” Leach said. “We have a certain amount of legitimacy. They know we have the resources. They can look at our finances. They can see we don’t have any debt. There is a level of comfort that [being a public company] provides.”

He added that the same level of legitimacy applies to hiring, too. Ibotta is no longer offering stock options tied to a private valuation given by investors with no downside protection, and Leach said that makes the company a more attractive option for talent.

Leach said companies on the fence about doing an IPO shouldn’t try to time the market, but they should wait until they are ready to be a public company.

Going public this April was not the company’s first choice, either. During the SPAC and IPO craze of 2020 and 2021, Ibotta’s investors began asking it to go public, and so the company hired bankers and wrote up an S-1, an SEC document that kicks off the IPO process. It was ready to set out on an IPO roadshow in fall of 2021 but decided to hold off.

Ibotta had landed a large deal with Walmart to run a white-label version of its rewards program at the time, Leach said, but he wanted to be able to prove the deal was actually working before going public. Not everyone was pleased with the company’s decision to wait.

Still, Leach feels it was the right choice. Waiting until 2024 allowed Ibotta to go public with six quarters of profitability behind it and get its finances in order. Other late-stage companies in the same boat, he thinks, shouldn’t wait around for a “better” market.

Investors don’t seem to mind companies waiting it out — at least they aren’t expressing otherwise publicly. But the IPO market is bound to open again eventually. Interest rates have started to go down and there is an increase in rumors surrounding companies hiring bankers to start the IPO process. Companies may be done waiting come 2025.