Data and privacy concerns are a big part of any discussion about the digital world we live in, and that means tech giants like Google are facing more and more pressure to prioritize transparency. The year 2023 saw an increased demand for accountability and clarity from users worldwide. As we venture into 2024, it's imperative for Google to reevaluate its transparency practices to foster trust and maintain its position as a leader in the tech landscape.

Transparency, or the lack thereof, has been a recurring issue for Google. Users often grapple with uncertainties surrounding data collection, algorithmic processes, and the use of personal information for targeted advertising. To address these concerns head-on, Google must embark on a path of increased openness and clarity.

Firstly, enhancing transparency in data collection practices is pivotal. Users are becoming increasingly aware of the sheer volume of data amassed by tech companies. Google needs to provide clearer insights into the types of data collected, the purposes behind their collection, and the duration for which it's retained. Detailed explanations, easily accessible to users, would be a significant step towards fostering trust.

Additionally, transparency in algorithmic decision-making is essential. Google's algorithms wield immense power, impacting search results, ad targeting, and content curation. Offering users more visibility into how these algorithms function, the factors considered, and the steps taken to ensure fairness and accuracy would ease concerns about biases or manipulation.

Striking a balance between personalization and privacy is crucial. Google's proficiency in delivering personalized experiences is undeniable, but it's equally important to empower users with comprehensive control over their data. Implementing user-friendly controls that allow individuals to manage their data preferences effectively is a cornerstone of transparency in the digital age.

Google can further augment transparency through proactive communication. Regular, plain-language updates on privacy policies, security measures, and any changes therein can fortify user trust. More importantly, though, the company should also provide meaningful explanations for the purposes behind any changes, assuring users that their concerns are heard and addressed.

Another crucial aspect is shedding light on the use of AI and machine learning. Google heavily relies on these technologies, and explaining how they're employed while ensuring ethical considerations are upheld is paramount. Clearly defining the boundaries within which AI operates and the ethics guiding its implementation can ease fears of automation running amok.

Furthermore, fostering transparency in partnerships and collaborations is vital. Users deserve to know about third-party involvements, data-sharing agreements, and how their information might be used beyond Google's ecosystem. Establishing stringent guidelines and holding potential partners to Google's own transparency standards is something users deserve.

While advocating for enhanced transparency, Google must navigate various challenges. Balancing transparency with proprietary interests, safeguarding lawful competitive advantages, and adhering to regulatory frameworks without compromising innovation requires a delicate balance.

The year 2024 holds immense potential for Google to elevate its transparency practices. Prioritizing user trust through increased openness, clear communication, and user empowerment will not only align with our ever-evolving expectations but also strengthen Google's position as a responsible steward of our data. 

Embracing transparency isn't just a step forward in restoring trust—it's a commitment to a more accountable and ethical digital future.

• A European pricing rumor for the Galaxy S24 series suggests the base model and the S24 Plus may drop in price.
• Unfortunately, it looks like the Galaxy S24 Ultra could jump in price for all three storage variants.
• The latest rumors go against a leak from Korea, which speculated Samsung could keep its pricing the same as the Galaxy S23 series.

Word has come around about Samsung's upcoming Galaxy S24 series pricing in Europe with good news for two of three models.

According to GalaxyClub (Netherlands), Samsung's upcoming flagship phones in Europe might be priced slightly lower than expected — except for one. The publication suggests the following prices for the series:

• Galaxy S24: 128GB for €899 / 256GB for €959
• Galaxy S24 Plus: 256GB for €1,149 / 512GB for €1,269
• Galaxy S24 Ultra: 256GB for €1,449 / 512GB for €1,569 / 1TB for €1,809

Directly translating the European pricing to USD skews the numbers as they're higher than what we received with the Galaxy S23 series. If we were to do so, consumers would see the Galaxy S24 priced at around $999 and $1,065, respectively, for its two variants. Samsung typically fine-tunes the number based on where it will be sold, so don't hang on those numbers.

However, what we can look at is the Galaxy S24 Ultra, which is seemingly primed for a pricing increase. Taking the direct Euro to USD pricing at face value, consumers may see the Galaxy S24 Ultra at $1,609, $1,743, and $2,009 for its three storage variants.

The numbers are likely to shift around, but a price increase in the U.S. appears unavoidable for the S24 Ultra.

It was previously rumored by a Korean publication that Samsung may keep prices the same as the S23 series. The post stated consumers would experience $799, $999, and $1,199 for the S24, S24 Plus, and S24 Ultra, respectively. Additionally, it was stated that Samsung's dual-chip strategy is why it could afford to maintain costs.

In the meantime, a massive Galaxy S24 leak spoiled the specifications for all three devices in the series. While the S24 Ultra is rumored to receive a 200MP primary camera and a "quad telephoto" setup, the other devices seem to be gaining a 50MP primary lens and a "dual telephoto" array. Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 was also listed, though it still looks like the S24 and S24 Plus will gain the Exynos 2400 in Europe.

The waiting may soon be over as it was rumored Samsung will host its Unpacked event on January 18 at 3 am KST, translating to January 17 at 1 pm EST.

• Carrier deals: Verizon | AT&T | T-Mobile | Mint Mobile | Visible 

✅Recommended if: you want a new home internet provider; you already use Verizon Wireless; you've been waiting for the right time to grab an Xbox Series X.

❌Skip this deal if: you're happy with your current internet provider; you're saving money on your phone/internet bill; you don't need an Xbox. 

More After Christmas sales — quick links

• Amazon: Up to 50% off smartphones, TVs, and more
• Best Buy: Historic price drops on phones, TVs, tech
• Samsung: Up to $1,000 off TVs, Galaxy S23, Z Fold 5, trade-in offers
• Walmart: Sitewide deals on appliances, games, tech
• Verizon: Up to $1,000 off Samsung, bundle discounts, free phones
• AT&T: Free S23 Plus, Z Flip 5, iPhone 15 with eligible trade-in/new line
• Mint Mobile: $600 off Pixel 7 Pro, plus six months of free wireless
• Lenovo: Up to 77% off PCs, monitors, and more

• Samsung has allegedly handed a Galaxy S24 Ultra in for its cellular network tests without the existence of two-way satellite connectivity.
• Such a connection was said to let users send and receive texts, alongside giving users the chance to send photos and videos.
• This was once rumored for the Galaxy S23 series, but it did not make it, and the Galaxy S24 series may miss out on it, as well.

New rumors suggest Samsung may not feature two-way satellite connectivity on its upcoming Galaxy S24 series. Such information stems from ETNews (Korean), as the publication states network testing has already begun (via SamMobile). Samsung allegedly handed the Galaxy S24 Ultra over to KT, LG Uplus, and SK Telecom in South Korea to ensure their viability for domestic connection.

However, during testing, the unnamed source states the device does not contain two-way satellite connectivity for transmitting emergency messages to authorities.

The connectivity was stated to piggyback off an L Band frequency to send signals to rescue personnel whenever a proper cellular connection was lost. Furthermore, the purpose of "two-way" is so a user can send and receive messages in return — unlike Apple's version that debuted on the iPhone 14, which only supports sending messages.

If true, this would be the second time Samsung skipped out on satellite connectivity. The company was rumored to be bringing this to the Galaxy S23 series in 2022 but its launch came and went without a word. Back then, it was speculated that Samsung was working with Iridium to provide voice and data communication services using 66 low-orbit communication satellites.

This was also, apparently, an aspect Samsung had been working on for two years before the Galaxy S23 debut.

Although, there was a bit of hope for the Galaxy S24 as the company introduced its new modem technology with satellite connectivity support in February. The hardware promised to let users send images and videos with others, alongside messages whenever a cellular connection is dropped. Samsung stated it aims to "surpass" Apple’s Emergency SOS by leveraging satellites and other non-terrestrial vehicles to beam connectivity to remote locations.

More importantly, the OEM tested this with the Exynos 5300 modem, but it still looks like we're playing the waiting game.

The Galaxy S24 series is rumored to launch on January 18 at 3 am KST, translating to January 17 at 1 pm EST in San Jose, California. A massive leak about the series spilled many of the specifications consumers may experience once the device arrives. The S24 Ultra is speculated to arrive with a 200MP primary camera and a "quad telephoto" array while the other two settle with a 50MP primary lens.

There's a definite argument to be made that the last three years have all been the "best" for ChromeOS and Chromebooks. While Chromebook sales skyrocketed during the pandemic, Google and its partners have reinvigorated a platform that frankly felt a little stale. That's no longer the case, but it also doesn't mean that there isn't room to grow.

I've had so many different Chromebooks come across my desk over the past year that it's been enough to make my head spin. This isn't a bad thing by any means, but it just further proves the point that the market is growing.

Just in 2023, we saw Google increase the longevity of ChromeOS devices, a proper Minecraft version was released, and Chromebook Plus was the first step in what feels like a more expansive roadmap. Not to mention all of the quality-of-life changes and feature additions that have come to ChromeOS every month.

That being said, here are a few things that I want to see from ChromeOS and Chromebooks throughout 2024.

Bring on Bard and Gemini

Ever since Microsoft Copilot was announced, I've been on record saying that this is what Google should have done with Assistant on ChromeOS. While a lot of things have changed since then, I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that this will eventually happen.

Assistant is already built into ChromeOS, but even when you ask it a question, it takes you to a browser window. Copilot answers the question for you, while including links to sources and citations, letting you decide if you want to explore the topic further. Microsoft also has big plans for Copilot in Windows, far beyond simply using it to toggle dark mode or turn on Do Not Disturb mode.

Google could have beaten Microsoft and OpenAI to the punch, but with the announcement of Gemini, I'm hopeful that there's something in store for 2024. Chromebook Plus kind of opened the floodgates a bit, as there are a few AI-infused features available for compatible devices. It's also possible that Assistant with Bard will be the answer to Copilot, but, that's dependent on the promised improvements coming to ChromeOS.

More Chromebook tablets

Originally, this was just going to be a piece about ChromeOS from strictly a software perspective, but I also have hopes and wishes for new Chromebooks. The first of which is that I'm hoping that we will see more Chromebook tablets released in 2024, and not just ones from Lenovo. The Chromebook Duet 3 and Duet 5 are both still incredible devices. However, they are also getting a bit long in the tooth.

They are both powered by the Snapdragon 7c Gen 2 SoC, which was originally announced in May 2021. Qualcomm has since announced or introduced several different Arm processors that could power new hardware, but that hasn't come to fruition.

There's a chance this could change following Qualcomm's announcement of the Snapdragon X Elite platform. But, even if that's not the case, I would still like to see something like a successor to the HP Chromebook x2 11, or at least a new version of the Duet 3 and 5 with more power.

The return of the Pixelbook

This year, we saw Google release 3/4 of the "Pixel-perfect ecosystem" that I've been dreaming of with the Pixel 8 Pro, Pixel Watch 2, and Pixel Tablet. But it's still missing that last piece of the puzzle, and that's a revival of the Pixelbook.

As I reflect on what I've written previously, I was probably naive in thinking that the Tensor platform was ready to be implemented into a Chromebook. But after seeing what Google is doing with Chromebook Plus and what Gemini promises to bring, the idea of an AI-infused Chromebook sounds like a dream.

I'm still of the mindset that Chromebook Plus was just the appetizer for what the future of ChromeOS looks like. I mean, it's not like Samsung is going to announce the Galaxy S24 and S24 Plus without having the Galaxy S24 Ultra. There's room for a higher-end segment that houses the likes of the HP Dragonfly Pro Chromebook, Framework Laptop Chromebook, and others.

What better way to make a splash leading into 2024 than bringing Assistant with Bard to ChromeOS, along with new AI features, all packed into a Google-made Chromebook?

Continue to improve the Steam experience

Rounding out a few of the things I want to see from ChromeOS and Chromebooks in 2024 is an improvement to the Steam experience. The work that Google and Valve have done to even make it possible to install Steam on a Chromebook is simply incredible. You don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get things working, but you aren't able to play just any game within your Steam library.

After seeing gaming Chromebooks hit the market, I was hopeful that we would see at least one new model that uses a dGPU. Unfortunately, that has yet to come to fruition, and while Intel and AMD continue to improve the onboard graphics performance, there's still no replacement for having a dedicated graphics card.

It's not so much that I want to be able to play all of the latest AAA titles on my Chromebook, but I'd like to have more flexibility. Let me play games that are more graphics intensive than Stardew Valley or Celeste. While we're at it, can we stop pretending that 128GB of storage is enough for a Chromebook?

I'm excited for whatever's next

Unlike last year, when I thought that Google and its partners would be focusing on the gaming segment, I don't have a good idea of what's to come. Clearly, I was partially wrong about gaming Chromebooks, to begin with, so maybe it's a good thing that I'm able to go into the next year without any expectations.

The only thing that I'm sure of is that ChromeOS will continue to grow and mature, and I'm all for it. I'm just hoping that there's something that comes out of ChromeOS or the Chromebook market that absolutely blows our minds. But even if that doesn't happen, ChromeOS is in the best place it's ever been.

The Fitbit Charge 6 and Charge 5 were released two years apart, and for all of the changes brought by Google's Fitbit acquisition, not much changed between the two fitness trackers themselves. They're nearly identical physically, have the same health sensors, and give you the same app experience.

That's not to say Fitbit sat on its hands. It squeezed in new Google apps, revamped heart rate data, and a highly useful new haptic button. If you're buying a new Fitbit tracker, the Charge 6 is the only logical choice, unless you prefer the petite Inspire 3.

If you already own the last-gen band, the Fitbit Charge 6 vs. Charge 5 differences may not be enough to justify the upgrade. Not to worry, though: We'll help you decide!

Fitbit Charge 6 vs. Charge 5: What's the same?

If you look at a Fitbit Charge 6 and Charge 5 side by side, you'd have trouble telling them apart. The dimensions are slightly different — the Charge 6 is 1.8mm taller, 4.3mm skinnier, and 0.5mm thicker than the Charge 5, based on the official measurements — but it's essentially the same design and feel as before (with one exception).

That's most evident in all of the above Fitbit Charge 6 specs that are copied and pasted over from its predecessor: You get a 1.04-inch AMOLED display with 450 nits of brightness, a 7-day battery life, a proprietary charging connector with a two-hour recharge time, 5ATM water resistance, and Gorilla Glass scratch resistance.

Our Charge 6 reviewer noted that he wished the tracker had gotten a bigger or brighter display than the Charge 5, as other brands now offer sizes well above 1 inch. But he also recognized that keeping this size helped Fitbit keep the Charge 6 as light and comfortable as the Charge 5.

Both trackers weigh 15g without the band attached, using the same aluminum, glass, and resin materials in each Charge pill. They employ the same proprietary band connector, too, meaning whichever of the best Fitbit Charge 6 bands you prefer, they're also backwards compatible with the Charge 5.

You'll also find the same tech inside of the Fitbit Charge 6 and Charge 5.

Each has an antenna for GPS or GLONASS tracking without your phone nearby — though they default to your phone's GPS when it's nearby. The built-in GPS has its issues for both the Charge 6 and Charge 5: it may not connect properly when you wear the tracker too tightly, and it's not especially accurate. So you'll probably want to keep your smartphone on you during outdoor workouts, regardless of which Charge you use.

They each measure continuous heart rate data during the day; at night, they check blood oxygen levels (SpO2), heart rate variance (HRV), passive AFib detection, breathing rate, and skin temperature levels. You can also take active EDA stress readings by sitting still for three minutes; we only wish either tracker had the passive cEDA sensor found on the Fitbit Sense 2, which is much more convenient.

On the negative side, neither tracker has an altimeter to judge effort at elevation, something the Fitbit Charge 4 offered.

Fitbit Charge 6 vs. Charge 5: What's different?

We mentioned "one exception" to the Fitbit Charge 6 and 5's twin designs: a haptic button on the Charge 6's left side that you squeeze to go back to the home page, trigger a shortcut, or switch between different views during an activity.

The Charge 5 is touch-only, and our reviewer called the experience "very hit or miss," noting that you need to be "intentional" to trigger actions. By contrast, our Charge 6 reviewer praised the haptic button, saying it "works as it should, without being prone to accidental presses like a physical button." It's much more convenient than having to double-tap the display, too.

Beyond that one difference, every other Fitbit Charge 6 upgrade is found beneath the surface, possibly due to a new processor that can handle more Google smarts than the Charge 5.

First, Fitbit claims that the Charge 6 delivers "60% more accurate readings during vigorous activities like HIIT, spinning, and rowing" compared to the Charge 5. Essentially, if the Charge 6 isn't resting properly on your wrist during arm-active sports, Fitbit uses "machine learning" algorithms lifted from the Google Pixel Watch to figure out your HR data with less information.

This Charge 6 algorithm apparently requires an "added compute load," but Fitbit and Google ensured that this didn't lessen the original one-week battery life estimate from the Charge 5.

The Charge 6's extra smarts manifest in other small but vital ways. The Charge 5 could only keep six sports modes on it at once, out of 20 available; with the Charge 6, you get all 40 of Fitbit's activities on-device at once, matching the Sense 2 and Versa 4.

One other cool upgrade for gym lovers or athletes with at-home equipment: the Charge 6 can connect via Bluetooth to gym equipment like Nordic, Peloton, Concept2, or Tonal to broadcast your heart rate. That's not something the Charge 5 can do.

Fitbit Charge 6 owners also benefit from three new Google apps the Charge 5 lacks: Google Wallet, Google Maps, and YouTube Music.

Google Wallet doesn't do anything that the Charge 5's Fitbit Pay doesn't; they're both there for tap-to-pay transactions, and nothing else. The difference is that you'll pull from your Google Pay cards instead of having to store and update your information in multiple apps. Plus, any transactions will appear in your Google payment history, which you may prefer.

The Fitbit Charge 5 doesn't support Bluetooth playback controls, a basic feature found on almost every fitness tracker or watch. That's also true on the Charge 6, with one Google-biased exception: YouTube Music subscribers get a Play/Pause button, Skip Forward/Back buttons, and Volume Up/Down buttons split across three screens. The Charge 6's small display makes these controls somewhat inconvenient, but Google superusers will still appreciate them.

The one can't-miss Charge 6 update, in our minds, is Google Maps turn-by-turn navigation. Enter a destination on your connected phone, and you'll see a time to destination and an arrow on your wrist pointing you the right way, so you can keep your phone in your pocket. It's convenient for day-to-day walks, or even for outdoor runs.

The downside to all of this Google goodness is that it gave Fitbit a pretense to transition everyone from Fitbit accounts to Google accounts. You have to create a Google account to use the Charge 6, while Charge 5 owners may have managed to avoid transitioning from their old Fitbit account. You can't use any Fitbit without a Google account starting in 2025, but if that's a deal-breaker for you, you should stick with your Charge 5 for now.

Fitbit Charge 6 vs. Charge 5: Should you upgrade?

It's clear that the Fitbit Charge 6 is an iterative update, keeping the formula that made the Charge 5 our best fitness tracker pick for two years.

To summarize the key Charge 6 upgrades again, this is what you get:

• A haptic button
• More accurate HR data
• HR broadcast on gym equipment
• Google Maps, Google Wallet, and YouTube Music
• 40 on-device exercise modes instead of six

Of these, the haptic button, improved health data from workouts, exercise equipment connectivity, and Google Maps support are all very useful. We certainly wouldn't recommend you buy the Charge 5 today, as the smarter 6 is more likely to get support and new software updates in the next couple of years.

Are these changes enough for you to spend another $160 on the Charge 6? That probably depends on whether or not you liked the Charge 5, and if you like changes implemented during Google's Fitbit ownership like the Fitbit app redesign and Google account migration.

If not, there's no point in buying in further, as Google's Fitbit strategy is all about aligning the fitness brand with Google and Pixel hardware. Get used to the Google way of doing things, or look elsewhere!

So I’m going to air this out, tell you what you need to know, and help you set the proper expectations to determine if these are your next pair of earbuds that will help you move through spaces where you need to have your hearing unobstructed but still want to rock out to your favorite tunes!

Open-Ear Sound Explained

Let’s make it like that Thanksgiving feast and set the table so you know what you’re getting into. 

This will be the Reddit “Explain it like I’m 5” explanation of audition as it pertains to earbuds. The sonics of earbuds that sit in your ear canal are very different from those that sit outside that canal. Inside your canal, the vibrations generated by earbud drivers more directly excite the auditory apparatus, whereas those that sit outside that canal have their vibrations affected by not being focused by the confines of an ear canal, leading to a bass and sub-bass experience, which can be muted by comparison, given their tiny size. Another way to put it: think of yourself shouting into a crowd, where in-ears are like an old-school analog megaphone, whereas open-ears are like just shouting with no aid. Does that make sense? You can yell at me on Twi-er, X, if it doesn’t.

After all, at its most rudimentary, “sound” or better yet, “audio” is not much more than a thing generating atmospheric vibrations that excite the structures inside your ear, which you then perceive as “sound.” 

If that thing generating sound is in a big, open space, those atmospheric vibrations disperse broadly like throwing a stone into a lake. That’s open-ear earbuds. In-ear devices contain those vibrations or “sound waves” so that fewer vibrations are lost as they travel from their source to your hearing apparatus. The impact of this loss is greater on low-frequency sound, like bass, than it is on high-frequency sound, like treble.

Hopefully, that places my insights into context throughout the rest of this review. 

AeroFit Pro vs AeroFit: Pros and cons

So, let’s get right to it, shall we? Let us begin with the sound quality of both the AeroFit and AeroFit Pro. You’re basically wearing a boombox next to your ears, walking around like a 2024 version of Radio Raheem. And that makes a big difference in my testing of both of these units. 

Neither of these is going to “wow” hip-hop fans with their bass response. However, the lack of punch is inherent in this technology. 

The AeroFit Pro (which I’ll also refer to as AFP) come with 16.2mm dynamic drivers, while the AeroFit (AF) have 14mm dynamic drivers. You will hear the difference in sound if you audition both units. From the larger drivers, coupled with LDAC support, you’re going to get bigger, fuller sound out of the AFPs. What bass there is to be experienced will be a bit more robust than that of the AFs. In the gym and on the street, you’re going to get more “loudness” to fight competing ambient sounds. That sound will be fuller, so you can turn the music down and compete less with ambient sound out on the street and still have good quality sound. 

Admittedly, after going through my local .flac files and lossless streaming tracks, I enjoyed my time with the AeroFit Pros more than the AeroFits. I wasn’t all that impressed with the AF sound reproduction for the money, and I’d definitely recommend spending the additional $40 and going with the AFP model. You’ll get more battery life, that larger set of dynamic drivers, spatial audio (though that was not that great, more in a moment), LDAC support, and physical buttons instead of touch-based controls. The only area where the AF has the AFP beat is in water resistance. The former is IPX7, and the latter is IPX5 water-resistant.

AeroFit Pro Audio Tested

So, let’s get more into my experience with the AeroFit Pro. As I stated before, bass and sub-bass are the weaknesses of bone conduction and open-ear earbuds, and that weakness shows up when listening to tracks like “A Milli” from Lil’ Wayne. There’s no sub-bass to be had in the reproduction of that track, while you do get some decent thump at the higher bass frequency, and it sounds fine. Speed metal tracks like those from Gojira and Sylosis fare better overall, but they will still be a bit light in the bass response as well. You’ll notice this at the beginning of the Gojira track “Stranded,” where the drum intro comes in. 

That said, I was actually surprised by how well these open-ear earbuds overpowered the terrible gym music playing over the house speakers at the gym I go to. I couldn’t really hear their music over the sound the AFPs produced. That’s great for me because I was actually lamenting having to use something during my workout, which would hinder my ability to zone out and focus on that mind/muscle connection.

My other concern besides having to hear their music over my own was actually how well these would stay on my head because when you first put them on, the part that holds the speakers over your ears feels like they’re just dangling off the side of your ears. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I hit the local elevated metro train stop to run stairs and then again when I went to the gym. No movement! These are a joy to wear during workouts. For my gym workout, I even took the included neckband with me in case the AFP fell out, but I never attached it because the fit was so solid. That said, if I were riding a bike, I’d definitely attach that neckband as an extra safety measure against losing them. And the neckband is easy to attach and detach. It clips to the ends of the earbuds via strong magnets and doesn’t budget once attached. 

Now, my workout didn’t consist of dynamic movements like burpees, but when I was lying back on the flat bench, they never moved at all. When I went to do dips, I got the same result. Running those stairs, which I’d consider dynamic movement, they stayed in place.

The only caveat with regard to fit is that the size of the AeroFit Pros could be a bit rough for those with smaller heads and ears, while the AeroFits, with their visibly smaller size, might actually be a better fit.

With regard to watching movies and video content, they’ll provide a solid experience if you leave the Spatial Audio off. Turning that feature on creates a tunnel effect, which I noticed when I was watching “Thor: Ragnarok.” The good news is that there is no latency when watching!

But how do they sound on the other end? When you’re taking a call? Well, during one of my midday walks through a very busy part of Santa Monica, packed with cars and all the sounds of a bustling urban landscape, my wife couldn’t hear any of it while we chatted for around 20 minutes or so; she said that I was also clear and easy to hear. While we were on that call, I also walked into a grocery store, and she said she couldn’t hear the music playing over the store speakers in the background.

Final Thoughts

In terms of the rest of the features, both units support AAC and SBC audio; both have four mics with a background noise canceling AI algorithm, and neither case is wireless charging enabled but charges via USB-C. You’ll get up to 14 hours of playback with the AeroFit Pro, and from dead, 10 minutes of charging will get you 5.5 hours of playtime. With the AeroFit, you get 11 hours and as much as 4 hours of playtime with a 10-minute charge. Both units also support multi-point connections to two devices, with the feature turned off by default, and with the AFPs, you’ll have to choose between turning on LDAC support or multi-point functionality. Both cannot be active at the same time.

Should you buy these?

I think that these types of technologies have come a long way since my bone conduction walkie-talkie using paintball days in 2006. The sound quality of many open-ear earbuds I’ve tested is pretty darn good with respect to the limitations of the technology. 

But, you know what else has come a long way? Hear through, or ambient sound passthrough technologies. 

There are competing products that sit in your ear canal while still allowing you to hear everything around you in a manner that sounds natural. Of those competing products at this price point or below, Soundcore’s products seem to have much better battery life, which is definitely a consideration. For example, the Jabra Elite 5 has solid hear-through, but you’ll get half the battery life of the AeroFit Pro. Additionally, if you ride a bike on busy urban streets or work in some place like a warehouse where you want to have tunes on, but situational awareness is mission critical, these may be for you! 

I think these are great for very specific use cases, and if you fall into one of those “need to hear what’s going on around me and listen to music/podcast/audiobook” situations, give the AeroFit Pros a try.

If you need a watch for your couch-to-5K journey or the occasional jog, neither of these watches are for you. The Forerunner 265 is a serious running watch that sacrifices other amenities to focus on battery life and training tools above all else. The Forerunner 965 fixes some of the 265's compromises, but at a price point that only serious runners should contemplate paying.

As the person who reviewed the Forerunner 965 and the Forerunner 265 in quick succession, I'm well placed to determine just how much of an upgrade the 965 is. It's still my daily watch months later, but if I'd stuck with the 265 and never tried it, I'm sure I would have been perfectly happy...without knowing what I was missing!

Garmin Forerunner 965 vs. 265: What's the same?

Launched in the same month, the Forerunner 965 and 265 share most of the same tricks by design. The pricier running watch has exclusives, while the mid-range option is no slouch. I'll go into specific changes below, but these are the main similarities:

AMOLED displays: After years of MIP displays, Garmin gave the Forerunner 265 and 965 AMOLED displays for the first time. While the 965 display is bigger, their pixel-per-inch ratio is nearly the same: the 965 PPI is 324, the 265 PPI is 320, and the 265S PPI is 327.

Dual-band GPS and SatIQ: With either watch, you can use different location accuracy settings that balance precision with battery life. All-systems mode uses multiple GNSSs like GPS and GLONASS at once, depending on what's around; dual-band GPS uses both L1 and L5 frequencies to bypass signal blockages from different angles; and SatIQ mode switches between options automatically depending on how much extra satellite help you need, saving battery while still offering good accuracy.

You can choose the 965 or 265 to get more reliable GPS than any other brand; in fact, the Forerunner 255 and 955 also offer dual-band GPS, though not SatIQ mode. I've extensively tested the accuracy of each watch, and I've never been disappointed thus far.

Core Garmin smarts: As with most high-end Garmin watches, you get Garmin Pay (NFC), ANT+ connectivity, wi-fi downloads, music storage (though the 965 has more), Livetrack safety features, Sleep Score with nap detection, phone notifications with visible photos, and quick replies (though the latter two are Android-only).

Unlike the Venu 3, which I reviewed most recently, neither gives you a mic, speaker, or Sleep Coaching. Both Forerunners did steal some of its UI upgrades in the December update, though.

Sensors: Whichever Forerunner you buy, you get an Elevate v4 heart rate sensor — meaning no 5th-Gen ECG or skin temperature — blood oxygen, altimeter for elevation, compass for navigation, accelerometer and gyroscope for movement detection and running form analysis, and an ambient light sensor to automatically adjust AMOLED brightness.

The lack of AFib detection and skin temperature is a downside to both, one you can rectify by choosing the Venu 3. But as our Venu 3 vs. Forerunner 265 breakdown shows, the Venu lineup is missing many of the great running tools I'll list next.

Training and metrics: Get ready for an absurd laundry list of features. The Garmin Forerunner series has a well-earned reputation for guiding runners to success, and these two watches have virtually all of the same tricks.

Our Garmin Forerunner guide compares all of the Forerunners' software similarities and differences; for the Garmin Forerunner 965 vs. 265 specifically, these are the training, metrics, and health features that both share:

There's a reason why the Garmin Forerunner 265 is our pick for the best running watch today. The Forerunner 965 is undoubtedly better, but just look at all of the features above that the Forerunner 265 offers, too! Unless you specifically need the 965-exclusive tools I'll outline in later sections, you can absolutely make do with the Forerunner 265 software suite and improve as a runner.

Garmin Forerunner 965 vs. 265: Design and display

Both of these watches have the same signature Garmin Forerunner look; they're more functional than stylish, sticking out fairly noticeably from your wrist. They also have 5ATM water resistance, so you can keep wearing them for your pool activities.

I wish that Garmin sold a Forerunner 965S to appeal to small-wristed runners. But that minor quibble aside, the 1.4-inch Forerunner 965 has a better design than the 1.3-inch 265 — with one exception.

Even though the Forerunner 965 has a bigger case (47mm vs. 46mm), it only weighs 6g more. 53g, or 1.87oz, is heavier than some fitness watches but not painfully so, since that number incorporates the band. You feel it initially but lose awareness of it during a run; the same goes for the 47g Forerunner 265, which doesn't feel all that different in practice. You'll want the 39g Forerunner 265S if weight is a real concern. 

Looking at each watch from the top down, the Forerunner 265's plastic bezel looks like it sits awkwardly on top of the AMOLED display, while the Forerunner 965's titanium bezel encases it in a more natural and stylish way. The latter still mostly relies on plastic, but that helps keep it light; if you want a better titanium finish, you'll need a Garmin Epix Pro Gen 2, which costs much more and weighs a whopping 98g for the 1.4-inch watch.

Another perk of the Forerunner 965 is its Gorilla Glass 3 DX finish. Corning notes that it has a 75% better anti-reflective coating and 50% better color contrast than its standard GG 3 finish, which the 265 uses. It makes the Forerunner 965 easier to read in sunny conditions, or even indoors, where the 265 frequently shows reflections along the display edge. I also noted that the 265 can "accentuate my finger oil smudges" more than the 965 in my review.

Flipping the script, the Forerunner 265 uses Quick Release bands that let you pull a tab to remove them in seconds, making them easy to swap out or clean.

For the Forerunner 965, Garmin used QuickFit, a somewhat misleading name because you need a special tool or a screwdriver just to remove its bands. You can do it, but fair warning that you'll probably end up sticking with the default strap out of laziness.

Garmin Forerunner 965 vs. 265: Hardware and battery life

As I already explained above, the Garmin Forerunner 965 and 265 share the same health sensors, tracking sensors, connectivity tools, and satellite functionality. They'll both connect to ANT+ accessories, heart rate monitor straps, and (for cyclists) power meters and Varia radar/ lights.

The only hardware difference worth noting is that the Garmin Forerunner 965 has 32GB of storage instead of 8GB. You might assume that means you get quadruple the music storage, but remember that Garmin primarily gives you that space for map storage. By default, your continent's topographical maps will probably claim about 10GB; you can also buy and download maps in other areas.

Otherwise, the key distinction between them is battery life. The Forerunner 965 has excellent battery life, beating the MIP Forerunner 955 by days for idle battery even if it loses for GPS battery. In our review testing, it held up to Garmin's estimates, needing infrequent charging even while tracking dual-frequency runs or GPS-only walks every day.

The Forerunner 265 doesn't have the same longevity, although the 265S does surprisingly better in every category. If you can stomach the smaller display, that might be a compromise worth buying if you really want to avoid frequent charging or your watch dying during long runs.

From my experience testing both watches for long stretches, the Forerunner 265 will last a week, give or take a day, if you're a runner or cyclist using dual-band GPS for daily training. With the Forerunner 965, you're liable to get closer to two weeks.

Exclusive Garmin Forerunner 965 features

Let's run through all of the key Garmin Forerunner 965 features the 265 lacks, and see if you can live without them, starting with the biggest one: Maps.

You can download courses to the Forerunner 265, with the ability to route yourself back to where you started, see what's ahead or how far you have to go or check the total elevation changes across your route. But the key is that you have to download stuff ahead of time, or else your map is just a line on top of a blank canvas. It doesn't have the storage for full topographical maps.

With the Forerunner 965, you have that pre-downloaded map data so you can check for nearby trail paths and find your way home more naturally. You get a ClimbPro ascent planner to know what elevation gains are coming, an "Around Me" mode to find the nearest restroom or landmark, and a NextFork tool to tell you where the nearest trail junction is on your current path.

Frankly, I don't use this feature that often because I mostly run on familiar trails around my home. It's only necessary if you like to do a lot of hiking or long bike rides in unfamiliar locations. Still, it's very nice to have in a hiking or trail run emergency.

Next, let's run through specific training tools. The Forerunner 965 uses your training readiness, VO2 Max, Body Battery, and other data to give you a "real-time stamina" widget during your run. It estimates how much energy you have left before you're likely to need to stop, so you know when to turn around.

Although the Forerunner 265 shows your current acute load — your seven-day training load and whether it falls into your optimal fitness range — only the Forerunner 965 has chronic load and training load ratio. Essentially, it compares your current weekly load against your averages for the past four weeks; the hope is that you keep your load ratio slightly higher than 1.0 to steadily improve your fitness over time, without over- or undertraining.

Garmin will also tell you how well you're acclimating to hot weather or unusual elevation changes. The latter could be useful if you're traveling for a race. Unfortunately, Garmin hasn't brought the Jet Lag advisor to the Forerunner 965 yet.

My favorite new additions to the Forerunner 965 are its Endurance and Hill scores. Hill score, as the name suggests, tests your endurance and strength when it comes to climbing up hills. The more you climb, the more likely your score will improve, showing how prepared you are for elevation-heavy races.

Endurance score, meanwhile, is a more advanced metric than VO2 Max, since "individuals with the same VO2 max often have very different results" according to Garmin. It looked at two to three months of training data to determine your individual "fatigue resistance" and "capacity to perform sustained efforts." You can then check Garmin's Endurance score chart to see how you fare against your gender and age group.

While the other Forerunner 965 exclusives gather proverbial dust, I do check my Hill and Endurance score charts to see how I'm improving over time, and find them quite useful.

Lastly, these are the 21 Forerunner 965 activity profiles that the 265 lacks: Swimming/Running, Indoor Climbing, Bouldering, Climbing, Golfing, Disc Golf, Road Biking, Gravel Biking, Bike Commuting, Bike Touring, Cyclocross, Kayaking, Motorcycling, Overlanding, Motocrossing, ATVing, Snowmobiling, Backcountry Snowboarding, Backcountry Skiing, Ice Skating, and Snowshoeing.

Of these, most are fairly niche motor, winter, or climbing sports for serious adventurers. Plus, you only need those specific biking profiles if you're unhappy using the standard cycling activity for them. Most likely, it's the Forerunner 965's golfing tools — pre-downloaded course maps, yardage to green, digital scorecard, and other tricks — that will appeal to "everyday" athletes the most.

Garmin Forerunner 965 vs. 265: Which should you buy?

We have the Garmin Forerunner 265 listed as our best Garmin watch as of December 2023, simply because it strikes the right balance between training tools and affordability.

Make no mistake, the Garmin Forerunner 965 is significantly better, enough to justify spending $150 extra if your budget allows it — and should get even more high-end features over the next couple of years. The problem is that the Forerunner 265 already costs slightly more than your typical high-end Android watch or Apple Watch. It's only "affordable" in that it has 90% of the tools of a Garmin Fenix or Epix, while weighing and costing far less.

Many runners don't need maps, real-time stamina, non-running activity profiles, or Hill score data. An extra five hours of dual-frequency tracking (or 10 extra days of battery) and a titanium bezel are nice to have, but not strictly necessary to give your running a boost.

Don't upsell yourself to the Forerunner 965 unless you (A) can truly afford it and (B) are a serious enough runner that you know you'll be using it for years to come. Whichever you choose, you shouldn't be disappointed.

The Galaxy Tab A8 is our favorite affordable tablet because it smartly balances quality construction and reliable specs with good old-fashioned bang for the buck, even when there's no discount involved. The 10.5-inch display may be small (and it's not AMOLED), but you're getting an aluminum and glass build, tons of battery life, expandable storage up to 1TB, and even Quad speakers with Dolby Atmos support. In other words, if you want an Android tablet that won't break the bank, the Galaxy Tab A8 is the perfect choice, especially when you pair it with a 43% price drop. 

More After Christmas sales — quick links

• Amazon: Up to 50% off smartphones, TVs, and more
• Best Buy: Historic price drops on phones, TVs, tech
• Samsung: Up to $1,000 off TVs, Galaxy S23, Z Fold 5, trade-in offers
• Walmart: Sitewide deals on appliances, games, tech
• Verizon: Up to $1,000 off Samsung, bundle discounts, free phones
• AT&T: Free S23 Plus, Z Flip 5, iPhone 15 with eligible trade-in/new line
• Mint Mobile: $600 off Pixel 7 Pro, plus six months of free wireless
• Lenovo: Up to 77% off PCs, monitors, and more

Thank heaven for VR consoles like the Meta Quest 3 because playing VR games these days is typically as simple as slipping the headset on and moving your arms. I don't have to fight with audio problems, wireless streaming latency, driver updates, or the usual random issues I have with PC games every time I turn on my PC.

And that leads me to wonder: what could 2024 hold in store for VR headsets like the Quest 3? Heaven knows what Meta's monthly update schedule could bring, but I've got a few wishes I'd like to see come true this New Year.

Wider audience appeal

I recently spoke with Andrew Eiche, CEO of Owlchemy Labs — the company responsible for hit games like Job Simulator, Vacation Simulator, and Cosmonious High. My goal was to get a handle on what makes games like Job Simulator so universally likable, and I came away with quite the revelation.

Games like Job Simulator aren't just great games for new VR gamers; they've also got lasting power. Eiche tells me that "a very surprising number of people come back and play" Job Simulator and Vacation Simulator repeatedly.

Some of the wide appeal of these games is the excellent game design that's easy to understand and doesn't make people motion sick. But Eiche has a different theory that makes a lot of sense, and it's one he says "all VR games with extreme staying power" implement.

The top-selling games on Quest are made up of surprisingly different games. Games like Beat Saber and Job Simulator are simple, easy to understand, and fun for all types of players. On the other side of the spectrum, games like Bonelab and Blade & Sorcery push the boundaries of virtual movement and can make even the most seasoned VR gamers a little queasy at times.

So, what could these two disparate groups of games possibly have in common? They all allow you to be the character you want to be without forcing oodles of backstory or narrative on the player.

It's funny because this seems to be the opposite theory of what makes AAA traditional games popular on consoles and PCs. Games that sell well or make waves on those systems are ones involving heavy narratives or well-known characters — think God of War, The Last of Us, Halo, Call of Duty, The Legend of Zelda, etc.

So, does that mean that most VR games need to be sandbox-style adventures? Not necessarily, but it does seem that designing games around this concept tends to do well in VR. Ultimately, VR games that sell best in the long run are ones that "let you fulfill a specific fantasy," as Eiche puts it.

Universal comfort settings

But, regardless of how a game is played or a story told, no one will want to play it if they're constantly uncomfortable.

And here's where I'm calling for some help from Meta. When the PS5 launched, it was the first time I had ever seen system-wide settings that would apply in all games you played.

I prefer an inverted Y-axis camera when looking around in any first or third-person game when using a controller, so I applied this setting in my PS5 system settings. Now, when I start a new game, I don't have to go into options and change this setting every time. It's automatically applied in every game. The PS5 also supports many other similar settings that get automatically applied to games, and I want to see Meta do this on the Quest.

More specifically, I'm referring to comfort settings. Meta needs to both define and mandate specific comfort controls that players can choose and use in all games. The problem right now isn't just that each game handles comfort controls differently, although that's plenty confusing on its own. It's that there's no real standard for how comfort features look or work outside of loosely accepted concepts like tunneling or vignetting.

Ideally, Meta needs to define locomotion and comfort options at the system level and require developers to support the basics in each category. Folks who can only play VR games with teleport locomotion, for instance, should never be put in a situation that forces smooth locomotion and can, thus, make someone feel motion sick.

Likewise, Meta needs to more broadly define comfort ratings on its store page. Right now, it's simply a green for "comfortable," yellow for "moderate," and red for "intense." This isn't good enough.

"Back in the day, green, yellow, and made sense...[but] these comfort ratings have existed for, you know, closing in on a decade now," Eiche noted. Meta needs to add far more granular definitions of what comfort options a game contains. As Eiche puts it, VR customers are more savvy. "It's time to be more savvy about [these ratings]."

I'd also love to see wide adoption of Meta's new upper-body tracking feature, which promises to put an end to VR motion sickness altogether.

Grander games

I fully recognize that games like Assassin's Creed Nexus and Asgard's Wrath 2 take years of development, but that doesn't stop me from hoping that we might see a few massive releases like this pop up in 2024!

At the moment, however, the list of potential AAA-quality VR games is very short. This isn't terribly uncommon around the New Year for any system, as developers tend to wait until the Spring to announce new projects, and some of the biggest releases won't be announced until the Summer. Remember, Asgard's Wrath 2 didn't even get unveiled until June 1, and that turned out to be VR's biggest and best game.

So, what are we expecting at this point? Early in 2024, we should see the release of anime-inspired Attack on Titan: Unbreakable, the time-traveling narrative-heavy Wanderer: The Fragments of Fate, and the mech battler UNDERDOGS.

And later in the year, we're expecting a behemoth of a game in Behemoth (pun intended). This is a new open-world Skyrim-like game from the developers of The Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners.

And who knows, maybe we'll get lucky enough to finally see Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas get released on the Meta Quest platform now that GTA VI has been unveiled.

As for the PSVR 2, I hope Sony pulls out all the stops for the system in 2024. We only saw three first-party Sony-published titles in 2023: Gran Turismo 7 and Horizon Call of the Mountain, both of which arrived at the same time as the PSVR 2 launch, and Firewall Ultra, which arrived in the fall.

Heck, Capcom contributed nearly as many releases as Sony, dropping two massive Resident Evil VR games.

But this isn't just a PSVR 2 problem. Sony hasn't exactly been forthcoming with its first-party portfolio on the PS5, either. We're getting yet another remaster of a game that doesn't need a remaster (The Last of Us Part 2). We also know Insomniac is working on Wolverine, but it's likely that the game isn't coming until 2026 at this point. Outside of that, the list of first-party Sony-published games for even the PS5 in 2024 is essentially blank right now.

In other words, just because we know little doesn't mean there's little to hope for.

Stop breaking things

Meta updates its Quest headsets every single month by adding features, tweaking designs, and fixing bugs. While the company has drastically improved the design and overall experience over the years, there have been more than a few times when a feature was clearly rushed and resulted in more than a few unwanted bugs.

I understand that a monthly update schedule looks nice on paper, but having this kind of cadence isn't great if it just introduces bugs. With Apple Vision Pro's release on the horizon, the little mistakes that Meta keeps making are only going to look even worse, juxtaposed with what that obnoxiously expensive headset can do.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that iOS and other Apple products can be plenty buggy on their own, but many of Meta's mistakes on the Quest feel as if they could be solved by doing just a bit more testing before sending out a software update to every headset in existence.

A happy new year

While I could go on for a while, this list sums up my biggest requests for VR in 2024. This year was arguably the best year VR has ever seen, with huge adoption numbers during the holiday sales period and more new players than ever.

I'm beyond happy to see more people getting to experience VR than ever before, especially now that the industry is so much more mature than in previous years. Headsets like the Meta Quest 3 are more comfortable to use, offer important features like mixed reality, and offer significantly better tracking and visual fidelity than previous generations.

It's going to be a very bright year for VR, and I can't wait to play more VR games than ever!