Many tech reviewers have suggested that smart rings could signal the end of smartwatches. But based on my extensive testing of the best smart rings, I can confidently say they won’t suit everyone. While it might seem that wearing a tracker on your finger could be more comfortable and convenient, this isn't always the case. You’ll also need to consider accuracy, design, price, and tracking features.

It may also be helpful to consider some of the best fitness trackers on the market. There’s an overlap between the best smartwatches and fitness trackers: although smart rings are gaining popularity, many find that budget-friendly fitness trackers can offer a more reliable and straightforward way to monitor health, sleep, and fitness.

Drawing from my years of experience testing smart rings and smartwatches, I've created this guide so you can decide whether a smart ring or a smartwatch is right for you based on your budget, preferences, and priorities.

Smart ring vs smartwatch: Comfort, design and durability

Choosing between a smartwatch and a smart ring largely depends on personal preference. Smartwatches offer adjustable straps for a perfect fit and can be customized by swapping out straps with different materials and colors.

However, if you find wearing something on your wrist uncomfortable, a smart ring might be a better alternative. While smart rings don’t offer adjustable sizing, many companies will send you a sizing kit with plastic dummy rings to help you find the ideal one for you. Most of the ones I’ve tested so far have been incredibly comfortable with a snug fit. 

They're designed to be comfortable enough to wear overnight, whereas many people dislike wearing watches to bed. 

Although these rings are fixed in design, they tend to be more discreet and resemble jewelery, bringing you a sleeker, less sporty look compared to most smartwatches and fitness trackers. However, many do still seem bulky when you compare them to regular rings, especially on smaller hands – don’t let the marketing messages that they’re all incredibly slim and dainty fool you.

Like all wearable technology, smart rings are also susceptible to wear and tear. During my tests, those with matte black finishes, like the Ultrahuman Ring Air and the Circular Ring Slim, showed significant signs of scratching after just a few days. More premium smartwatches, on the other hand, are designed with durability in mind.

• Winner: Smart rings

Smart ring vs smart watch: Screens, apps and smartphone features

If you prefer a device with a screen, you'll need to choose a smartwatch or a larger fitness tracker. Smart rings are designed to be more passive – though some models now include added features, like vibrating alarms. This makes smart rings an excellent choice if you're trying to reduce your screen time but still want to monitor your health. Alternatively, you could consider a screenless wrist-based tracker, like the Whoop 4.0, which focuses purely on fitness tracking without digital distractions.

While the lack of a screen might be part of the smart ring appeal, consider whether you might miss this feature during activities like running, using apps or when you want to control music playback from your phone. For many, the desire to disconnect from screens is strong. But if you’re moving from a smartwatch or fitness tracker to a smart ring, it’s worth thinking about whether this will impact your lifestyle, especially if you're keen on tracking specific activities from your wrist in real-time, like workouts.

On the other hand, smartwatches, especially those with LTE connectivity, offer a world of possibilities. They can function as standalone devices, capable of sending SOS alerts and making calls. Many also feature physical controls, built-in voice assistants, and apps, making them much more than just fitness trackers. Think of them as your comprehensive digital companions.

• Winner: Smartwatches

Smart ring vs smart watch: Sleep tracking, energy and wellbeing

One significant advantage of smart rings is their accuracy in sleep tracking thanks to the data they collect, like heart rate, movement and even temperature. For those who find wrist-worn devices uncomfortable at night, a smart ring might also be a more suitable option. Generally, I’ve found the smart rings I’ve tested to be more comfortable for overnight wear, though it's worth noting that a poorly fitting ring or flashing sensors can disrupt sleep.

Many top smart rings are primarily designed to monitor sleep and give you information about your energy levels and overall well-being rather than focusing primarily on fitness. This makes them an excellent choice for those prioritizing a holistic view of their health, although most high-end smartwatches and fitness trackers also track these metrics too. 

Oura and Ultrahuman offer detailed feedback on your daily energy levels and readiness for exercise in their apps, as well as giving you information about the best time to eat, sleep and drink caffeine. This type of feedback isn’t unique – for example, Garmin offers similar suggestions about energy levels – but it does highlight how smart rings are differentiating their offerings from other devices.

It's important to mention that while many smartwatches and fitness trackers, like the best Apple Watches, are just as effective at sleep tracking, they may require nightly charging, which can be really inconvenient. Just like smartwatches, battery life varies significantly among smart rings: for example, the latest Oura Ring Generation 3 lasts up to 7 days on a single charge, whereas the Circular Ring Slim needs recharging after just 2 days.

• Winner: Smart rings

Smart ring vs smart watch: Fitness tracking, sensors and accuracy

Many of the leading smart rings can track your movement, and they’re getting better at monitoring your workouts – especially when you add activities manually via their app. However, smartwatches and fitness trackers currently provide the best solution for detailed data on speed, heart rate, laps, and other specific metrics.

While some may claim that smart rings can perform all the functions of smartwatches and fitness trackers, they fall short in delivering comprehensive fitness data and (obviously) cannot display this information in real-time, because there's no screen. 

This is probably why some people combine their wearable gear, using a dedicated fitness tracker, like a top-tier running watch, for specialized activities while wearing a smart ring for continuous, everyday wear. Although mixing and matching wearables is an option, it may not be feasible for everyone, particularly those on a budget or those who prefer simplicity.

There's a big debate about whether smart rings or smartwatches are more accurate. Some data suggests that a smart ring's placement on your finger might yield more precise readings for heart rate and temperature, but this accuracy depends on several factors, including the quality of the sensors, the algorithms used for data interpretation, and, importantly, the fit of the device. For instance, one smart ring I'm currently reviewing fits like the others I've tested at first, but shifts around during the night, causing the sensors to lose contact with my skin. 

• Winner: Smartwatches

Smart ring vs smartwatch: Price, subscriptions and risk

There are many different smartwatches available, from the eye-wateringly expensive Apple Watch Ultra 2 ($799 / £799 / AU$1,399) to the incredibly affordable CMF Watch Pro from Nothing ($69 / £69 / AU$131). It's a similar story with fitness trackers, from the high-end running watch, the Garmin Epix Pro ($899.99 / £829.99 / AU$$1,529) to the super budget Huawei Band 7 (£49.99 / AU$159).

In comparison, the best smart rings aren't quite as pricey as the most high-end models, but are still a significant investment. For example, the Oura Gen 3 is $299 /£230 / AU$420 and the Ultrahuman Ring Air is $349 / £280 / about AU$537.

Some reviewers claim that smart rings are available on a budget, but in my experience, these affordable options compromise on quality. In contrast, budget fitness trackers might lack some of the same slick aesthetic appeal but often offer greater reliability. If cost is your primary concern, choose one of the best budget fitness trackers. Things are changing fast, but right now it’s hard to make a good smart ring on a budget, which has led to a surge in the market of low-quality, cheap smart rings.

What's more, there's been a significant buzz around smart rings. I’ve met people who were initially enthusiastic about owning a smart ring, only to find it uncomfortable, excessively scratched, or simply annoying to use. If you have a more generous budget and enjoy experimenting with the latest gadgets, these issues might not deter you. However, for those who are more cautious, it might not be the ideal time to invest in a smart ring.

It's worth noting that certain leading smart rings, like the Oura, come with subscription plans. While some users might find these services and their benefits appealing – such as upgrades and integration with third-party apps – it's essential to evaluate whether the ongoing expenses after the initial purchase are in your budget. 

Finally, some smart rings seem rushed to market. Features aren't ironed out, design flaws are evident, and the apps don’t read or work as well as they should. In comparison, more established devices, like smartwatches, tend to offer a more polished experience, benefiting from years of user feedback and iteration.

• Winner: smartwatches

Smart ring vs smartwatch: which is the best? 

There’s no definitive answer as to whether smart rings or smartwatches are better. Each type of wearable caters to different preferences and needs, with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

A smart ring could be an excellent choice for those with a larger budget who are keen on trying the latest technology and don’t require detailed fitness tracking. Smart rings are also particularly effective for monitoring overall wellness and sleep; many of the best ones are very light and comfortable. However, as a category, smart rings are still in their infancy, and will improve with time. 

If you value having apps at your fingertips, require detailed fitness metrics, or want a proven, reliable device, a smartwatch is the way to go. Alternatively, if apps are not a priority and cost is a concern, consider opting for one of the top fitness trackers. 

While they may not have the aesthetic appeal of the newest smartwatches or the novelty of smart rings, they're great at tracking fitness metrics accurately without any fuss.

You might also like...

• A key Apple Watch health feature just got a landmark stamp of approval
• Amazfit's new low-cost wearable packs in a big display and 26 days of battery life
• The Amazfit Helio Ring has a release date and price, and it's launching ahead of the Samsung Galaxy Ring

The new default font is Google Sans (formerly known as Product Sans), which owners of the best Chromebooks will already be familiar with, even unknowingly; it’s already seeded throughout both the OS and Google’s websites, appearing in the Files app and Quick Settings menu as well as on Google’s own digital storefront.

If font changes are something that worries you (yes, they worry me; yes, I’m a big software interface nerd), then thankfully there’s no need to panic here: Google Sans is a pretty inoffensive font, a far cry from that other Sans font that virtually everyone hates. In fact, it’s very similar to the existing default Roboto, or fonts like San Francisco and Open Sans, to the point where an unaware user might not even notice the change.

Chrome, sans Roboto

Changing the primary font of an entire operating system is no small feat – there was uproar among font fanatics when Microsoft changed the default font of Word from Calibri to Aptos after a 17-year run. I’m personally quite averse to change, and while I approved of the shift away from Times New Roman (ugh) back in the day, I felt that the Calibri-to-Aptos move was unnecessary. After all, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right?

Well, Roboto ain’t broke, but I can appreciate why Google wants to make the change to its own branded typography. Google Sans is a good font; after all, it’s the lettering that the search engine giant has chosen to represent itself with on official public material, so I can reasonably assume there has been a lot of money and many, many hours of work poured into ensuring its perfection. It’s a pleasingly modern typeface, most crucially opting for an open-tail lower-case ‘g’ – none of that hideous loop-tail business here, thank you very much. Yes, I know we use it here on TechRadar, and that you're looking at it right now. No, I’m not happy about it, but you’ve got to pick your battles.

Considering that Google Sans is already present in many corners of ChromeOS, it’s not likely to be a world-shaking change for most users. My fellow font fiends can relax, though – this isn’t even a big leap for those who pay close attention to lettering, if you ask me.

Roboto won’t be completely ousted from the OS just yet, either – judging by a Chromium Gerrit code commit spotted by 9to5Google, the former default font will stick around for times when Google Sans just won’t quite fit (due to a lack of specific glyph support, for example). We don’t have a concrete date for when the change will be implemented just yet; given that ChromeOS version 124 is already in beta and due to go live imminently, it’ll likely be in version 125 towards the end of May or the beginning of June.

Got a strong opinion about fonts? I know some of you do. Hit me up on X (cough, Twitter, cough) with your absolute worst font takes!

You might also like...

• This handy feature has been promised to ChromeOS users for a while now - but it’s still stuck in development
• Google Chrome will soon let you talk to Gemini right in the address bar
• The latest Windows 11 update is riddled with bugs, but Microsoft has finally addressed the problem

According to whispers online, at least one of the new iPads will be powered by Apple’s own M4 chip and will arrive with advanced AI features. Seeing these powerful M-series chips – primarily designed to run the best MacBooks and Macs – included in an iPad Pro isn't anything new; there have been iPad models in the past that included these chips. However, their inclusion in an iPad usually comes after the chip has already appeared in Apple’s computers and laptops.

If this rumor – which originated from notable Apple leaker Mark Gurman – is accurate, it would be the first time an M-class chip has appeared in an iPad before a Mac or MacBook. This would be a major change in Apple’s tactics. Ever since the company dropped Intel from making the processor (CPU) and integrated graphics (GPU) for its Macs and MacBooks, instead choosing to build its own system on chip (SoC) that combines the CPU, GPU and memory (plus other clever bits), every generation of M-class chip (M1, M2, and M3) has launched alongside new MacBooks.

Could this latest move suggest the company is switching focus from Macs to iPads again? I certainly hope not.

End of the Mac renaissance

I’m going to be honest: the Macs and MacBooks Apple released between 2010 and 2020 were rather uninspired. Outside of a few minor design tweaks, each new Mac, iMac and MacBook received a slight bump in specifications... and that’s about it. While none of the releases were poor products, neither were they particularly exciting. In fact, they were teetering on the edge of becoming what so many Apple fans hate about Windows laptops: functional yet boring.

Even Apple seemed disinterested, instead focusing on its (relatively) new hit products, the iPhone and iPad.

That all changed in 2020 with the launch of the M1-powered MacBook Air, MacBook Pro 13-inch and Mac mini. While on the surface those products didn’t look any different from the models that came before, there'd been a revolution on the inside. I remember talking to various people at Apple around the time of that launch, and what was striking was the excitement surrounding these new Macs. This wasn’t just an iterative hardware upgrade, it was a whole new ball game, and it felt like Apple knew it was on to a winner.

The new Macs backed up that confidence, delivering impressive performance, excellent battery life and great value for money – something you don’t often associate with Apple. Customers were as impressed as the critics, and Apple was rewarded with the kind of sales that surely made most laptop makers envious.

And so began what I call the Mac renaissance. More powerful variants of the M1 chips followed (the M1 Pro, M1 Max, and an almost ridiculous M1 Ultra), along with a revamped 16-inch MacBook Pro and all-new 14-inch MacBook Pro and Mac Studio.

Obviously not wanting to lose momentum, Apple soon launched the M2 chip, again alongside a MacBook Air (this time with a radical redesign that gave the laptop a much-needed modern look), a 13-inch MacBook Pro, and a Mac mini. This was followed by M2 Pro, M2 Max chips, and the M2 Ultra.

Apple was seemingly getting into a bit of a routine. However, towards the end of 2023, the company decided to shake things up – and not everyone was impressed.

At an event in October called 'Scary Fast', Apple surprised pretty much everyone by not only announcing the anticipated M3, but also the M3 Pro and M3 Max. This broke the cycle of launching the Pro and Max variants around six months after the initial chip launch – and, understandably, it upset those who had only recently bought M2 Pro and M2 Max MacBooks. The M3 versions launched just nine months after the M2 versions, leaving some people feeling like the expensive high-end devices they bought were all too quickly superseded.

It also raised eyebrows at the M3 ‘Scary Fast’ event that the 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pros were launched alongside the new chips, and a new 24-inch iMac, but for the first time, there was no MacBook Air (or 13-inch MacBook Pro, although that was less missed).

This meant that people who'd been hoping for an affordable MacBook with the new M3 chip were left disappointed.

The MacBook Air with an M3 chip did finally come along in March of this year (in both 13-inch and 15-inch variants), though, and they were well worth the wait, earning coveted five-star reviews and a place at the top of our best laptops guide.

But I couldn’t help but feel that Apple’s enthusiasm for MacBooks was once again waning. And, if the company decides to go forth with the iPad Pro as the showcase product for the M4, this could spell the end of the mighty Mac renaissance.

Picking favorites

An iPad Pro with an M4 chip could be seen as a snub to Mac fans. For a start, it would kill off any hope of an M3 Ultra mega-chip. I can’t imagine Apple would attempt to sell an ultra-powerful (and expensive) chip built on outdated architecture.

Buyers of the new M3 MacBook Airs may also feel a bit put out if their new devices were surpassed – and by a tablet.

However, if this does come to pass, one thing's for sure: I certainly won't be ditching my beloved MacBooks for an iPad Pro.

For a start, you have to accept that at some point your cutting-edge tech will be superseded. If you only ever want to use the most powerful gadgets money can buy, you’ll be burning through a lot of money. Instead, you should remember that even if your device is no longer the absolute best-in-class, that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly worthless.

I have a 16-inch MacBook Pro with the M2 Pro chip, and I absolutely love it. When the 16-inch MacBook Pro with M3 Pro was released, my M2 Pro model was still an absolute beast of a machine, and it will be for many years to come. Replacing the MacBook for the newer model would be costly and largely pointless – especially if an M4 iPad Pro heralds the coming of an M4 Pro in the near future.

And, while I’d be a little glum if an iPad got to show off the power of the M4 before a Mac, I won’t be swapping a laptop for a tablet any time soon. The iPad Pro is a fine line of tablets, sure – as I discovered when I used an iPad instead of a laptop last year, with a good keyboard attachment, you can get a decent experience that comes close to what a laptop offers.

But "close" isn’t good enough. Unless the M4 iPad comes with macOS instead of iPadOS, and thus allows me to use full desktop applications rather than pared-down mobile app versions, I’m not interested.

I use my MacBook Pro mainly for recording and editing music and videos, and I can’t see an M4 iPad Pro allowing me to do the same. Of course, that’s just my use case, I also much prefer typing on a physical keyboard. 

There will be plenty of iPad fans who will love the idea of the M4 chip debuting in an iPad Pro, especially after a few years where they might have felt that Apple has lost interest in the tablet. That’s a feeling Mac fans will certainly find familiar, so maybe we can graciously allow the iPad line to benefit from a new piece of Apple silicon this time around, safe in the knowledge that M4 Macs will surely follow soon.

Unless, of course, Apple pulls the rug from under all of us, launching the M4 alongside a new Vision Pro. If that happens, we riot.

You might also like

• iPad Pro 2024: what we know so far
• iPad Air 6: latest news, rumors and everything we know so far
• Windows 11 laptops could finally take on M3 MacBooks thanks to Qualcomm – but Microsoft needs to do its part too

Considering that my position is for Microsoft to simply give up on Windows 11 and move to launching and supporting Windows 12 instead, it’s fascinating to see gamers actually lean into the OS to the point that nearly half of gaming PCs surveyed by Valve have it installed.

According to data from the latest Steam Hardware & Software survey, Windows 11 is installed among 45.15% of Steam users, while Windows 10 has a 51.02% install base. Currently, the top two operating systems are neck and neck, with 11 having a shot at taking over as the most popular gaming OS, especially as 10 has been on the decline in that regard and all of the best gaming PCs today come with Windows 11 preinstalled.

But why?

It’s fascinating as to why this would be the case, as there isn’t much incentive for gamers to make the switch. There are more niche features like Auto HDR, advertised as a Windows 11 setting that would make older games look just as vibrant and clear as modern releases, but the setting barely does anything.

Then there’s the issue of advertisements appearing in the Start menu with no way to opt out, which — alongside the forced integration of AI into the OS — has made the UI more cluttered and annoying to navigate. It honestly boggles my mind as to why so many gamers made the switch with so little material benefit and so many downsides.

It’s possible then, that so many gamers have 11 installed out of convenience rather than any sort of material benefits. All current Windows PCs come with Windows 11 installed rather than Windows 10, meaning that if you purchased a desktop or laptop in 2022 or later you’ll already have it.

While nearly half of Steam gamers use Windows 11 right now, there’s a massive demographic of users who would rather stick with Windows 10 than move on, despite the End of Support (EOS) for Windows 10 looming over users by October 2025. Or, maybe that’s the answer. They could be waiting to move on to Windows 12 instead of dealing with the issues of using Windows 11.

Regardless of the reason, at least Windows 11 received a bit of good news after its fair share of bad press in recent weeks.

You might also like

• I left Windows 11 for a MacBook Pro and it's the best tech
• Microsoft should accept that it's time to give up on Windows 11
• I made my Windows 11 PC look like Windows XP and I love it

Sure, seeing these series' Force-wielding protagonists clash with their Sith counterparts and other overtly villainous folks – amid the crackle and buzz of lightsabers – is always highly enjoyable. But the bits in between – channelling the Force and so on – have become rather stale in my eyes. Blah blah “concentrate”, blah blah “use your feelings”... you get the idea.

Even in Disney Plus shows that initially don’t revolve around the Jedi, such as The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett, still tread old ground and eventually lead to the telekinetic hot-glow-stick wielders showing their faces. While I was entertained by the Kill Bill-style battle between Ahsoka and Morgan Elsbeth at the end of The Mandalorian, other appearances from the Jedi have either been a tad underwhelming or overbaked. Yes, I know ‘Baby Yoda’ is cute and all, but seeing Grogu train with a digitally recreated Luke Skywalker in season 2 of The Mandalorian (one of the best Disney Plus shows, in many people's eyes) wasn’t the dose of nostalgia and role-reversal I think Disney hoped it would be. 

Andor, though, showed me and many other Star Wars fans that you can make a great Star Wars show without a single Jedi appearance. In fact, I’d argue that Andor is the most interesting piece of Star Wars content that Disney has done to date – something that TechRadar's senior entertainment reporter Tom Power also claimed in his Andor season 1 review. 

Yes, I know it was a slow-burn to begin with, but the series' determination to explore how planets and societies operate under the yolk of the Empire is fascinating, as is peeking behind the curtain of how the Imperials maintained galactic control (beyond their legions of Stormtroopers) across the cosmos post-Star Wars Episode III. Andor's morally gray characters with a strange mix of selfless and selfish motivations, including its so-called heroes in the titular renegade, Luther Rael, and even Galactic Senator Mon Mothma, made for far more interesting viewing than the stereotypical good and bad guys that we've come to expect from those on the Light and Dark, and the Republic and Empire, sides of the divide.

Andor gave me all of that, as well as a planet-hopping yarn, complete with tense action, cool ships, great costume design, and even discussions over the foundations of society and rebellion to fuel one’s mind with discourse. Throw in its multi-genre appeal – Andor is filled with sci-fi drama, political thriller, and espionage-based action – and here is one of the more recent new Star Wars shows and movies that feels creatively unique among its peers.

So I want to see Lucasfilm lean more into other parts of the lived-in Star Wars universe, especially projects that ask audiences to question what we know of it. Okay, Star Wars: The Acolyte (out on June 4), is yet another tale based around the Jedi, which contradicts the points I've made. But, considering it's set during the High Republic era – the first time we'll see this period in a live-action production – and it'll be similarly amoral to Andor with how it positions the too-comfortable Jedi and their Sith underdogs, it should deliver something befitting the kind of show that I want to see from the Disney subsidiary.

But that's all I'd like to see. Not only do I want more Andor (thankfully, Andor season 2 is on the way), but how about a series that goes deeper into exploring what life is like from an Imperial point of view – the Star Wars: Tie Fighter videogame did this, as did other recent gaming titles like Star Wars: Battlefront II and Star Wars: Squadrons. Disney has a vein to tap into there. 

Equally, I’d like to see a series that looks at Han Solo and Lando Calrissian. Okay, Solo: A Star Wars story already did this to some extent, but I feel there’s more to dig into there. Could something of this ilk happen in the apparently still-in-development Lando project, which may see Donald Glover play the roguish schemer once more? I live in hope. 

Failing that: how about focusing on the adventures of explorers or traders adapting to the new Imperial rule, or ignoring it completely and pushing into the worlds on the far edges of the Outer Rim? We could bounce forward into the era of the recent Star Wars movies and examine how Benicio Del Toro's DJ, the oddball slicer first and last seen in 2017's Star Wars: The Last Jedi, came to be. Speaking of those movies, Finn was basically side lined after Star Wars: The Force Awakens, so I’d love for that wrong to be righted, and for us to get a look at how Finn became a Stormtrooper under the First Order. John Boyega, who played Finn in the sequel films, exclusively told TechRadar (in a chat with Tom Power) that he's "open" to appearing in another Star Wars movie, so give him the tale that he deserves.

In summary: there’s a rich tapestry of untapped potential in the Star Wars franchise that Disney could explore without looking all doe-eyed at the Jedi – and I, for one, want them to actively lean into this more. Make it so, please.

 "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose"

In a chat with fellow Managing Editor Matt Bolton, we brainstormed a few er... creative... Star Wars show ideas. Read on for our machinations:

• How about Pod Racing: Drive to Survive, where we follow pod racers in their efforts to gain renown while staying alive.
• Jawa Storage Wars could follow plucky Jawas in the bowels of a Sandcrawler as they try to trade all manner of items scraped and scrounged across Tatooine. 
• One Man and His Droid: a touching tale of a moisture farmer bonding with an errant astromech. 
• Keeping up with the Kashyyykians, a semi fly-on-the-wall docuseries following socialite Wookiees as they go about the high life on their homeworld of Kashyyyk, compete with jewel-encrusted bowcasters. 
• Similarly, The Real Housewives of Coruscant could explore the glitz and glamour of the spouses of high-ranking senators in the capital of the Republic/Empire, complete with high-drama and high-fashion inspiration from Padmé Amidala. 
• Below Deck: A Star Wars Documentary would be a reality show-meets-documentary following the life of select crew members of a Super Star Destroyer, where we see junior officer Bendak Willough-tee get in a steamy relationship with TIE pilot Courtnita Skipponch. 
• Deal or No Deal: Tatooine Edition sees new contestants try and get a good deal out of Jabba the Hutt – only those that fail to strike said deal get fed to a Rancor. 
• Cantina Nightmares where galactic chef Goron Rancorsey tries to save falling cantinas around the Outer Rim, all the while yelling “you’re serving f***king blue milk!” 
• Frozen Planet could feature Droidvid Clatteborough, renowned nature documentary presenter and protocol droid with dulcet tones, exploring life on Hoth while dodging predatory wampas.  

There are some ideas for you there, Disney. Matt and I are happy to consult – just please cut the amount of Jedi shows and realize that not everything has to happen on Tatooine and/or feature those crowd-pleasing but overused Jedi, you hear?

You might also like

• Find out how to watch the Star Wars movies in order chronologically and by release date
• Star Wars: Skeleton Crew: here's everything we know so far about the Disney Plus show
• Or read about what we know about The Mandalorian season 4

According to April 2024 data from Statcounter, Windows 11 plummeted to a 25.69% market share after it reached an all-time high of 28.16% back in February 2024. Meanwhile, Windows 10 has risen to over 70% market share during the same period, and this is after Microsoft announced its intentions to reach End of Support (EOS) for Windows 10 by October 2025.

Microsoft could be looking at a tremendous issue, in which its hopes for Windows 11 being the ultimate AI-supported OS with Copilot, are hampered due to not having the user base it needs. Normally, an OS drops in support once the successor launches, so Windows 11 falling nearly three points in just a few months is quite telling.

But is it honestly surprising? 

It’s no secret that Windows 11 has been plagued with issues and bad updates since its launch — not to mention its biggest problem involving many users not being able to make the upgrade in the first place due to its much steeper installation requirements, which prevents many otherwise interested users from even upgrading in the first place. 

There’s also the fact that the OS has been forcing ads as "recommendations" into the Start menu and has even begun testing promotional recommendation pages that take up your whole screen, urging users to make Edge the default browser and installing or enabling other services. The worst part is that there’s no way to fully opt out of these ads, which accomplish nothing but clog up the UI with constant notifications.

As for what features Windows 11 offers over Windows 10? There’s simply not enough incentive for users to make the jump, with some features like centering the icons and Start menu on the taskbar and bringing back desktop widgets, barely worth mentioning. And some features, like the ability to move the taskbar, were actually removed.

On the other hand, Windows 10 came after Windows 8/8.1 which endeared users to its many improvements including bringing back the Start menu. Not to mention how much more stable the OS is compared to its successor, with far fewer broken updates.

What's the future for Windows 11?

The biggest reason to make the move to Windows 11 is possibly Microsoft Copilot, but that’s also coming to Windows 10. There are some unique AI tools that Windows 11 will be getting eventually, but that could also serve to further the divide between users with higher-end PCs and less powerful ones.

So then, what should Microsoft do? The tech giant might have to cut its losses and speed up the release of Windows 12, putting all the AI goodies and other new features there instead. The user base would be more willing to move to a new OS, and doing so could even prevent a possible ecological disaster in the making. There are also tons of other features and tools that could be added, plenty of which are fan favorites that would easily draw in users from Windows 10.

This move would be the kiss of death for Windows 11, but this would honestly be a net positive for Microsoft, as it could put all the bad press for Windows 11 behind it and fully support a superior OS while giving Windows 10 users far more incentive to make the switch in the process.

You might also like

• Microsoft reveals next evolution of Windows
• Windows 12: new features we want to see
• Could Windows 12 become Microsoft's first cloud-based operating system

A curved or waterfall back

At 6.1mm, the iPad Air is incredibly thin and yet never feels flimsy. Weighing just over a pound, it feels good in the hand. Still, if I had my way, I would bring back the curves, or, more specifically, introduce a waterfall back to remove or at least soften the sharp edges and make the iPad significantly more comfortable to hold and even rest in the curve of your arm or on your lap.

Such a redesign would also be a nod to the iconic original iPad design. It also has the edge around the back, but there was also that curve that made the device look and feel friendlier.

Shrink the bezels

The iPad has come a long way since the nearly inch-wide black bezels surrounding the first iPad screen but I think Apple can go further. The current iPad Air's bezel is still noticeably wider than what you'll find on the MacBook Air 13-inch. 

On the new iPads, I'd like to see bezels that can be measured in a few millimeters. Give me, Apple, as much drawing real estate as possible. If you must, go ahead and introduce a notch similar to what exists on the MacBook Air. I'd appreciate it if you made it smaller but I can live with the cutout if the end result is more screen. I would also accept a punch-hole camera approach. 

What I really want, though, is a Dynamic Island on the iPad; an update that would require both hardware and iPadOS changes. Just think of all the bits of information and interaction that could be delivered through that fungible, pill-shaped interface. 

Move the camera

It's time for Apple to acknowledge how 99% of us use our iPads. We work on them, watch TV, play games, and FaceTime in landscape mode. The FaceTime camera has inexplicably remained on the short side for Portrait mode use. It's a legacy feature from when people first bought iPads and ran vertical iOS apps in 2X mode. If a FaceTime call came in, you'd just look up at the camera along the top edge.

iPadOS now has its own apps, and the majority of them are designed to work in landscape mode. When I conduct a FaceTime call, I'm always looking at the wrong place and sometimes cover the camera with my fingers because I keep forgetting the camera is on the short left side.

This is a simple and much-needed change. Apple, put the camera on the long edge – yes, right below where we dock our Apple Pencil  – and let's move on from this legacy issue.

Wireless charging

This is such a no-brainer and I have seen rumors that promise such a feature. 

It's been 7 years since the iPhone line got wireless charging, and the Apple Watch and AirPods all arrived with it. It's almost inconceivable that Apple's other popular mobile technology still doesn't have it.

All I want is a nice MagSafe inductive charge ring on the back of every new iPad, from the Air and traditional iPad to the iPad Pro (and the iPad mini, if it survives). I don't think it will increase the thickness of any iPad.

Imagine the convenience of dropping your iPad on an iPhone MagSafe charger or, perhaps a new iPad MagSafe chargepad, one large enough to support the entire iPad back. Come to think of it, this could be a new Smart Folio cover.

A moveable dock

I keep my iPad Dock pretty clean, there are just a handful of go-to apps in there. This means it's never cluttered and can feel almost like an app widget. The problem is that it's glued to that one spot at the bottom of the home screen. 

For the new iPad (I know, this is primarily an iPadOS update), I want the ability to move the dock from the bottom edge to the right or left side of my screen as a vertical dock. 

It's not just that I demand flexibility – because I do – I think the dock might be more useful sitting next to one of my open apps. I also think that home screens should be less prescriptive and more adaptable. Such a change also fits with the home screen and lock screen enhancements Apple made in recent years to iOS and iPadOS

Bonus request

The modern iPad is so powerful that when paired with a keyboard it easily doubles as an ultraportable, touchscreen laptop. I like the Magic Keyboard Folio for iPad but I'd like it even more if the keyboard were on a slider so I could pull it away from the iPad screen. If it can also tilt up a bit to meet my touch, that would be even better. 

It's not that I won't appreciate the new iPads if Apple doesn't do some or all of these things, but if it does, it'll nudge some of the best tablets on the market to near-perfection and who can argue with that?

You might also like

• A 14-inch iPad is a terrible idea, and I have proof
• Apple says the imminent iPad launch will be a 'different kind of ...
• Can the iPad mini survive?
• I review laptops for a living, but after using an iPad for a week I might ...
• The best iPad: top Apple tablets to consider

Disney's first live-action endeavour into kid-focused Star Wars is arriving sometime this year. But, for Star Wars fanatics like myself, the very little that we already know about Skeleton Crew is sparking a greater degree of concern than Lucasfilm might have anticipated about its Goonies-style series set in its iconic galaxy far, far away.

Goonies... in space!

Depending on your generation, Skeleton Crew instantly draws an alarming number of comparisons to other quest-based thrillers starring child actors. In recent years, shows like Stranger Things have re-invigorated this TV and movie sub-genre – a category popularized by films, such as 1980s classic The Goonies, which played a vital role in creating an intergenerational bond with groups of rogue-like kids on an adventure.

For its part, Lucasfilm isn't worried about leaning away from its established Star Wars formula. With its political and spy thriller machinations, Andor has already proved that the Disney subsidiary is open to moving away from its tried-and-tested blueprint of the Light Side versus the Dark Side, or nomadic Force users attempting to reinvent and/or hold onto Jedi values. Likewise, Skeleton Crew – from what we know, anyway – will draw on a similar, non-Force wielding type of storytelling. Indeed, it's the entire basis of the series, with Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy (per ComicBook.com) saying: "[Co-showrunner] Jon Watts came to me, very much wanting to do a sort of Goonies in Star Wars... needless to say, I'm going to say yes."

This, though, begs one serious question: will Skeleton Crew simply rinse and repeat what's come before? Star Wars has long been home to some adventurous and plot-relevant groups. Whether it's the somewhat swashbuckling charm of Clone Force 99 – the protagonists of animated show Star Wars: The Bad Batch – or the close bond of Star Wars: Rebels ' Ghost crew, there's always been room for a team of underdogs to take the galaxy by storm. With Skeleton Crew's, well, crew, however, I'm struggling to see quite where they fit in, which makes me wonder quite what antics we can expect. 

Considering Disney Plus' contingent of live-action Star Wars projects – The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and Star Wars: Ahsoka – are building to an epic crossover movie, I hope Skeleton Crew plays a role in orchestrating the galaxy-wide plot that this movie will tell and subsequently avoid classic Star Wars tropes, such as its overreliance on telling tales set on desert planets like the iconic Tatooine. So, what can Skeleton Crew do to avoid its likely cliché-ridden downfall?

Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?

Okay, maybe not Jakku specifically, but it's safe to say Star Wars has a history of repeating itself. Whether it's overused locations, story beats, or returning characters, Lucasfilm's legendary sci-fi franchise has a habit of putting nostalgia above narrative and creative originality. To be fair, Skeleton Crew stands a chance of avoiding this, but that doesn't mean it won't fall into the same trap as Star Wars series of old. That is, however, unless Lucasfilm have truly pushed the boat – or star ship – out and ensure Skeleton Crew offers something truly unique.

Given how little we know about the the show's primary cast, I'm sceptical about its chances of doing so. That's assuming that Jude Law's mysterious figurehead isn't revealed to be yet another Jedi survivor of Order 66 (rumors suggest this will be the case, though), or that one of the four child actor leads isn't force sensitive. If one or both of these things are true, it would be easy to determine Skeleton Crew's primary plot. Given recent revelations in The Bad Batch season 3, too, I'm suspicious about the latter being as true as the speculation surrounding Law's roguish individual.

The one hope (A New Hope, if you will) that I have for Skeleton Crew comes from the era in which it's set. Even though it takes place during the same period as The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and Star Wars: Ahsoka – and in a move that'll contradict what I said in the final paragraph of the above section –I'd much prefer it if Lucasfilm allows Skeleton Crew to sit independent of its TV cousins. 

Sure, I'm not averse to one of many new Star Wars TV shows laying some groundwork for the aforementioned trio's crossover film, but I'd rather it didn't fly too close to these arguably more significant series. Instead, I hope we might get glimpses of the post-Empire impact on inner-rim planets like Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Jakku, or an exploration of factions like the Pike Syndicate and Crimson Dawn, or even the return of other remnants from times long past that haven't been examined in great detail. I'd give my right hand (toon soon, Luke?) to see in live action, especially if Star Wars: Skeleton Crew gravitates towards the seedier, crime-filled element of Lucasfilm's beloved spacefaring franchise.

The Star Wars lover in me will, if you pardon the pun, force me to subject myself to Skeleton Crew, regardless how it turns out. But, honestly, I'm struggling to shake the feeling we might be in for a first real unnecessary TV addition (Boba Fett and Ahsoka detractors may argue we've already seen that) to Disney's Star Wars universe. Prove me wrong, Skeleton Crew. 

You might also like

• Here's how to watch the Star Wars movies in order chronologically and by release date
• Star Wars: The Acolyte: get the lowdown on Lucasfilm's next Disney Plus series
• Andor season 2: what we know so far

I found that it’s incredibly speedy and responsive while using far less memory than Chrome, and that’s with both browsers having the same amount of tabs open. As most Chrome users are aware, memory drain is one of Chrome’s major drawbacks, so a Chromium browser that hogs up far less of it while still running efficiently is a huge deal.

Meanwhile, the obvious positive over Edge is the lack of ads and other massive clutter that’s been plaguing it, making it obnoxious at best and nearly unusable at worst. This includes a current bug from the most recent update that makes Edge almost completely unusable, at least until the next update that fixes it. 

Since it was originally made for macOS, Arc uses Swift instead of C++, the latter of which is used in both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge. While both are excellent programming languages, Swift’s advantage is that it offers automatic memory management which pairs well with increasingly faster processors. Automatic memory management means that developers do not need to write code to perform memory management tasks for managed applications.

Arc also uses native Windows frameworks, making it an incredibly fast and smooth experience. This also means that there is plenty of the Windows 11-like user interface baked in like menu design, toggles, Mica materials, and Acrylic support for a more transparent UI.

One of my favorite features is the split view, which instantly lets you split up tabs two, three, and four ways. You can also choose the format of the tab-splitting. It’s an especially handy feature for those with large monitors, as you can take advantage of it for multitasking without having to toggle through settings. 

And no matter how many tabs I opened, I noticed almost no slowdown. Plus, the management system for tabs on the left side of the browser was easy to pick up on and kept all of my tabs perfectly organized, with split tabs and normal tabs separated for easy tracking.

Of course, things aren’t all sunshine and rainbows. Being that this is still a Chromium browser, the looming privacy threat of Manifest V3 is very real as it could break down all ad blocking once it replaces Manifest V2. Then there’s the fact that the browser still tracks users with ad block installed. So as always, download and use Arc with that in mind.

The Arc team, also known as The Browser Company, has promised even more updates for the web browser to eventually bring it to the macOS version’s level, as well as Windows 10 support. It sounds like Arc is shaping up to be a truly unbeatable browser, and it could possibly beat out even the likes of Mozilla Firefox if it’s able to address those privacy issues. 

If you’re interested in trying out Arc out for yourself, you can download it for free here.

Now, power consumption is perhaps one of the least sexy elements of microprocessor design. It’s easy to market powerful new GPU cores or hot-topic AI processing power, but that doesn’t mean good power efficiency isn’t important - in fact, in laptops, it translates directly to more battery life, which market research cited by Qualcomm indicates is the number one priority factor for people looking to buy a new device.

Qualcomm made some bold claims about the X Elite’s battery-boosting capabilities at the event I attended, stating that it could match Intel’s new Core Ultra 7 155H laptop processor in performance with just 35% of the power consumption. Sure, I already knew Intel’s chips had a reputation for guzzling battery, but that’s damn impressive - if Qualcomm’s stats prove accurate once the X Elite is actually out in the wild.

The pitfalls of this great new chip

On paper, the Snapdragon X Elite seems poised to take the laptop world by storm. Qualcomm claims that it outperforms the Apple M3 chip by almost 30% in GeekBench 6’s multi-core tests, and that it can run Microsoft’s Edge browser 57% faster than Intel’s competing 155H CPU. Qualcomm’s battery life promises include 40% more power efficiency while using Office 365 apps and less than half the battery drain during Teams video calls against the same Intel chip. If the X Elite lives up to the hype, we could be approaching a golden era of laptop longevity.

There’s one slight wrinkle in the whole affair, however, which has me spooked. No, it’s not my long-running concern about Windows on Arm (although that’s a whole other problem).

During a Q&A at the Snapdragon X Elite event, 38 floors up overlooking the London skyline, a fellow journalist asked about the scalability of the new chip. The answer we got was a little surprising: Qualcomm is confident that it can leave power regulation for the X Elite chip in the hands of third-party hardware manufacturers, with no fixed operating voltages or wattages provided by the chipmaker itself. In other words, the power drain of the X Elite could vary significantly from device to device.

This is actually a very good idea on principle, since it effectively allows Qualcomm’s manufacturing partners to tweak the Snapdragon X Elite’s capabilities at will to better suit the power demands of individual systems. A compact Chromebook with only a small battery can draw less power from the chip, while a powerhouse 16-inch ultrabook can max out power use to utilize the X Elite’s full potential.

However, this naturally means that performance could differ greatly between devices, despite them using the same chip - and that creates ripe ground for consumer confusion.

A problem without a simple solution

The key issue here is that consumers might end up misinformed about the Snapdragon X Elite’s actual capabilities. While I appreciate that Qualcomm is working to avoid baffling potential customers with confusing CPU nomenclature in the vein of Intel and AMD, at least it’s easy enough to tell at a glance that a Core Ultra 7 is more powerful than a Core Ultra 5.

With the X Elite, two devices could be running at totally different power packets, and vary significantly in performance as a result - but without any clear indication of that on a brief spec sheet, Qualcomm runs the risk of disappointing consumers. I can understand the desire to mirror Apple’s user-friendly SoC naming conventions, but Apple keeps its M-series silicon inside a tightly controlled hardware and software ecosystem. With dozens of laptop manufacturing partners itching to get their hands on the Snapdragon X Elite, the same rules don’t apply here.

However, Qualcomm doesn’t seem overly concerned about this, so perhaps I’m just being a worrywart here. When I posed a question about it, I was informed that while power delivery is left to laptop makers, Qualcomm does provide “minimum expected performance guidelines”, presumably to prevent a third-party manufacturer from bespoiling the Snapdragon name with a hideously undervolted chip.

In any case, we won’t know the real ramifications of the Snapdragon X Elite for the laptop market until it arrives in consumer laptops later this year. Personally, I’m hoping it lives up to the hype - I’d truly love for Qualcomm to dash my fears and deliver an Apple-beating standard for lightweight laptops, so I can finally stop telling people to just buy a MacBook Air.

You might also like...

• Are we about to see Snapdragon X Plus revealed? Qualcomm teaser suggests Apple could have more to worry about than Elite CPU
• Apple's M4 plans could make the latest MacBooks outdated already
• I never cared about HDR content before, but Nvidia’s incredible AI-powered SDR-to-HDR demo has changed my mind