We are specialists in quality batteries. We have batteries, chargers and accessories for everything you can think of. Low prices, big inventory, expert advice. Find your battery here!
It was a ‘blink and you missed it’ announcement, but duringWWDC 2025, Apple revealed that 13 car manufacturers would be adding the ability to add digital car keys to yourApple Wallet”soon.”
At least 20 brands already offer keyless entry, including BMW, Genesis and Hyundai. Essentially, you can add a digital key to your Wallet app, which will enable you to lock, unlock, and start compatible cars using your iPhone orApple Watch.
Unfortunately, Apple did not provide a timeline or many other details on when digital keys would be available for cars from those manufacturers.
Apple has a web page thatlists all of the vehiclesthat support Apple CarPlay, and there’s also a little key symbol that shows you which compatible cars work with digital keys. It can be hard to miss since the symbol is a small, light gray key.
You may notice that some of the brands adding digital keys already offer CarPlay support.
Speaking of CarPlay, with iOS 26, an updated CarPlay is coming to your iPhone and vehicle. Despite being inbeta, we found it to be an improvement.
During WWDC, Apple also announced CarPlay Ultra, which is intended to be built into select vehicle manufacturers’ vehicles. However, that is seeing some early problems, as some promised car makers are already backing out.
When it comes to buying an Apple Watch, there are several things you should take note of, such as the different international versions, support for your preferred apps, and compatibility with other Apple devices. These days, there are even a ton of Apple Watch accessories by Apple, as well as third-party manufacturers, designed to enhance your experience. Apart from magnetic fast chargers and docks, there are also aesthetic add-ons, like watch bands, straps, and cases. However, one of the most crucial decisions you’ll have to make and one that can impact your overall cost of ownership and access to features is whether or not you should get a model with cellular support.
For its entry-level Watch model, the Apple Watch SE starts at $249 for its GPS model, while the cellular-capable one goes for $50 more at $299. On the other hand, the 42mm Apple Watch Series 10’s GPS version sells for $399, while its GPS + Cellular counterpart is $100 more expensive at the $499 mark. So, you if you’re currently in the market for your first Apple Watch (or looking to upgrade from an older, non-cellular-compatible model), you may be wondering if the extra $50 to $100 price difference is worth it. To help you decide, we’ve rounded up some critical pros and cons that you may want to consider before committing, as well as a few examples of who stands to benefit the most from this version of the Apple Watch.
Pros and cons of Apple Watches with cellular support
With an Apple Watch with cellular support, you can enjoy several iPhone features on your wrist. For example, you can use many of the iOS apps, like the maps and emergency systems. Plus, you are reachable via messages or calls, wherein you can respond in just a few taps. But while Apple Watches with cellular support have a ton of advantages, cost is definitely not one of them. Apart from being more expensive, they also have recurring fees that you need to pay to your carrier to access the benefits. Not to mention, if you’re a frequent traveler, it’s possible that roaming features won’t work in the countries you visit. Unless it’s set up with “Apple Watch For Your Kids”, it’s also limited to the same carrier as your iPhone. As for the day-to-day usage problems, we’ve mentioned before how cellular connectivity is a common reason for Apple Watch battery drain.
On the other hand, if you’re the kind of person with a dwindling attention span, you may want to take a pause before adding a cellular-compatible Apple Watch to cart. For people trying to rewire their ability to focus, having endless notifications on your wrist can have negative effects on your already overstimulated brain. Although it is possible to adjust your notification settings, you’ll need to ask yourself how much you actually need to be constantly connected if you’re going to silence them anyway.
Should you get an Apple Watch with cellular support?
As with many tech solutions, whether it is worth getting the Apple Watch cellular support depends on your lifestyle. In general, the people who benefit the most from using an Apple Watch with cellular support are those who need to be constantly reachable. Now, there are a bunch of use cases for this, particularly if you’re not a fan of having your iPhone with you at all times.
To start with, parents who use Apple Watches to keep track of their children may benefit from being able to contact them, even when phones are tucked away in bags or even left at home. In the same vein, if you are using the Apple Watch to manage your elderly parents remotely, it can help prevent harm or even save their lives with emergency features. Compared to the AirTag, which has reach limitations, an Apple Watch with cellular capabilities covers a lot more ground and is a more interactive way to be in touch.
Alternatively, Apple Watches are also perfect for athletes, who don’t want the hassle of looking at their mobile phones during training sessions. Not only can it reduce distractions, but it can double as a way to measure performance. And of course, people who work in fields that are related to emergency response, like doctors, nurses, or EMTs, can use Apple Watches with cellular data to make sure they never miss an important message.
It’s yet another bit of mind-numbing video jargon: 4K 30 vs 4K 60. But what do framerates actually mean and why do they matter?
4K 30 vs 4K 60: You can record video at different framerates. Higher framerates can sometimes capture fast motion more effectively, or be used for slow motion effects.(Image credit: Rod Lawton)
If you’re wondering what to choose between 4K 30 vs 4K 60, what you’re really asking about is video framerate. This, quite simply, is the number of frames captured for each second of filming (fps). Video does in fact consist of individual still frames, which are captured and played back so quickly that they give the impression of smooth, continuous movement.
So if you see a camera can shoot at 4K 30p, that means it can shoot at 30 frames per second. Technically (before anyone writes in), in some instances, it might be 29.97fps, but that’s a legacy of the old US NTSC broadcast format. I’ll keep it simple and just talk about 30fps as a common standard framerate.
Incidentally, don’t worry about the ‘p’ on the end. This is to distinguish modern ‘progressive’ video from outdated ‘interlaced’ video from old analog TV broadcasts, which is indicated with an ‘i’. Really, you can take it for granted that all modern cameras shoot progressive video, and very often people will leave out the ‘p’ after the framerate number.
Asking 4K 30 vs 4K 60 is one thing… but what about all those other options?(Image credit: Sony)
There are all sorts of discussions about which framerate looks best or is most appropriate. These days, where video is delivered and viewed digitally, it hardly matters from a technical standpoint, so really it’s a creative choice.
Nowadays 30fps is pretty much a universal basic framerate. If you don’t know what framerate to choose, choose 30fps. Some cameras will offer 25fps, depending on the territory in which they’re sold (which is like a throwback to the PAL TV system and not really important now). If your camera offers 25fps not 30fps, 25fps is fine.
Also of note, 24fps gives what many consider a ‘cinematic’ look to video, as it’s a standard framerate for movie productions. The differences are very nuanced, and if you’re new to video it can be hard to see the difference.
What are faster framerates for?
Thebest hybrid camerascan shoot video at 60fps, 120fps and faster – so what’s the point of that? There are three reasons, really. First, if you shoot video at 60fps and play it back at the same speed, you will be able to capture fast movement with more clarity and definition, though many feel that this gives video a rather unpleasant ‘brittle’ or ‘choppy’ look.
Higher frame rates are often used for slow-motion effects. If you record a clip at 60fps and then play it back at 30fps you get a 2x slow-motion effect(Image credit: Rod Lawton)
Another reason is so that you can create slow-motion effects. If you film at 60fps and then play back the video at 30fps, you get a 2x slow-motion effect. Sometimes the camera will have an ‘S&Q’ mode, which encodes the video for slower playback automatically; otherwise you’ll need to adjust the playback speed in a video editor.
A third reason for filming at a higher framerate is that it gives you more editing flexibility later. If you shoot video at 60fps, for example, you can still reduce this to 30fps for sharing at normal speed, but you have the option to include slow-motion sequences as well.
If you’re sharing your videos as-is, with no further editing, you don’t need to worry about the framerates of editing ‘timelines’. But if you’re editing together a whole bunch of clips into a movie with a video editor, they will be assembled into a ‘timeline’ which also has a set framerate.
For example, if you plan to make a movie with an overall timeline framerate of 30fps, then you really need to shoot all your footage at 30fps. Thebest video-editing softwarecan ‘conform’ videos shot at different framerates to match the one you’ve chosen for your movie timeline, but it’s not ideal.
You can incorporate higher-framerate footage for slow-motion effects, but this works best if it’s an exact multiple of your project’s framerate. So in a 30fps timeline, you could add in video shot at 60fps and 120fps too for slow-motion sequences.
The practice of “overclocking,” specifically in regards to PC components, means to deliberately push a component past its manufacturer-established limits to generate improved performance. In layman’s terms, if a particular component is performing at 100% of its capacity, to overclock it would be to push it above that into 110% or even 115% of its capacity. The PC components typically subjected to overclocking are the RAM, CPU, and GPU.
Overclocking your RAM can speed up your PC, and overclocking your CPU can improve your general performance. Meanwhile, overclocking your GPU can increase your PC’s graphical processing capabilities, improving the overall speed and quality at which your PC renders complicated imagery. For example, an overclocked GPU could be helpful for running strenuous video games, as it would increase your framerate and cut down on processing lag.
However, you can’t push something beyond its established limits without incurring some manner of penalty. Overclocking a GPU in short bursts can give you temporary performance improvements, but if you leave your GPU in that state long-term, the increased heat and power load will cause it to wear out much faster than usual. Additionally, your PC may not be able to keep up with the increased performance, not unlike placing a massive engine into a tiny car.
Overclocking a GPU increases power draw for slight performance improvements
The way overclocking works, physically speaking, is by increasing the processing cycles on a GPU, facilitated through an increased electrical consumption. Let’s say your GPU usually performs 50 processing cycles in one second, but you increase that number to 100 in a second. It’d be like if your brain were suddenly capable of processing information at twice the speed it already does. Naturally, you’d be able to figure things out much faster than you could.
Granted, rather than fully doubling the potential, overclocking a GPU will usually only get you performance improvements of around 5-10%, but it’s still a tangible boost. By overclocking a GPU, you increase the speed and precision at which the component does its job, generating visual data. If your PC struggles to render a demanding video or game, overclocking may give it the extra muscle necessary to pull itself over the proverbial finish line.
When it’s in an overclocked state, your GPU will be able to render high-fidelity graphics on a game with higher consistent framerates and less lag, or more quickly render footage from a video editing program. You can’t overclock a GPU from your PC’s default interface, but there are many programs and utilities available like MSI Afterburner that can quickly facilitate it. Keep in mind that this does require some technical knowledge and shouldn’t be performed carelessly, lest you mess up something important.
Over-relying on overclocking can wear your GPU out faster
The idea of pushing one of your PC’s components beyond its established boundaries naturally sounds a little intimidating, and certainly, it’s not a process you should undertake half-heartedly. The good news is that overclocking your GPU will not result in any kind of sudden, catastrophic failure like your PC bursting into flames. However, there are still risks. In order to facilitate the overclocking process, you need to increase your GPU’s power draw. All that extra processing requires more juice, after all.
The problem is that a GPU is only built to safely endure so much electrical influx. If you push that power draw beyond its limits, the greater electrical consumption will cause the GPU to generate noticeably more heat. Heat is the mortal enemy of safe PC operation, with high temperatures causing your components to wear out quickly. Your GPU won’t explode, but expect its overall lifespan to be diminished. It’s also worth noting that your GPU is supposed to work in concert with the rest of your PC’s components.
If you kick it into overdrive, the rest of your PC might not be able to keep up with the GPU’s newly souped-up state. This can lead to unstable performance and glitches, including freezing, crashing, or even data corruption. If you’re really set on overclocking your GPU, the best practice is to keep it to short, controlled bursts when you really need that extra power, such as overclocking a gaming PC for competitive play. If you overclock your GPU and leave it that way long-term, your PC will run itself ragged just trying to perform its usual duties.
Price:$299 / £299 / AU$549 Screen size:21.5 inches Dimensions:21.4 x 13.2 x 1.5in / 54 cm x 34 cm x 3.8 cm Resolution:1080p resolution Connectivity: Matter, Wi-Fi, Thread, Zigbee, Bluetooth Voice assistant:Alexa Camera:13MP Weight:10.7lbs / 4.9kg
Pros
M4 chip delivers top-notch performance
Design is still the best
All-day battery life
Lower price
Cons
– Apple Intelligence is still a mixed bag
If you want yourAlexa smart speakerto do more for you than tell the time and play some tunes, you’ll want to invest in a largersmart displaylike the Echo Show 15 or 21; but which is better?
Amazonannounced the devices just ahead of the official announcement ofAlexa+, Amazon’s new AI upgrade to its ever-popular voice assistant, positioning these larger Echo Show screens as the favored interfaces for its new, agentic AI, so there’s more reasons than ever before to consider a smart display-cum-speaker-cum-TV; deciding which is your only barrier. So, here’s how the two models line up.
TheAmazon EchoShow 15 costs $299 / £299, while the Echo Show 21 is $100 / £100 more expensive, and both are available directly from Amazon.
Both are wall mountable, but if you want a desktop or counter stand you’re looking at $100 / £100 on top of that for the official stand. There are a wide range of compatible VESA mounts available online, however, and our top tip is to find a rotating mount, as both of these screens can be installed in portrait or landscape orientation.
It’s also worth considering the price of Alexa+. By itself, the AI subscription service will be $19.99 as it rolls out in the US, or it’s free as part of an Amazon Prime membership. Global pricing and release plans are to be determined.
Overall, it’s slim pickings between the two screens, with the $100 / £100 difference mostly accounting for screen size. I’d argue the Show 15 is slightly better value as, for less, you get pretty similar specs across the board otherwise.
Modeled after a simple picture frame, the Echo Show 15 and 21 screens are laid on a white mat surrounded by a black frame. Along the top here are its speakers, volume controls as well as two pinhole microphones. There are manual privacy features, too; a microphone mute button that glows red when activated and a privacy shutter that covers the 13MP camera.
You’ll also have to factor in the 1.5m power cable when considering placement, which needs to be inserted into a recess on the back of the display and could limit your options when it comes to positioning your Echo Show. Also included is the Alexa voice remote, which is a neat addition, albeit one that falls a little flat owing to the fact that it can’t be used for skills and services outside of the Fire TV interface.
There’s minimal difference other than size, really, but that can be a big deciding factor. It all comes down to what you want from your smart display; if you want a visuals-first entertainment center, go for the Echo Show 21, whereas if you want a household planner heads-up display in family rooms, go for the Echo Show 15. I’d also say if you’re not planning on wall-mounting your new Echo Show, definitely opt for the 15. The 21-inch version does attach to VESA mount stands, but it takes up an awful lot of space and lacks grace, aesthetically speaking, when stand-mounted.
Winner:Echo Show 15 for its versatility, Echo Show 21 for wall-mounting
Echo Show 15 vs Echo Show 21: Performance and display
Both the Echo Show 15 and 21 offer crisp images with a highly reflective 1920 x 1,080 display. The viewing angle for these screens isn’t the best, which is a misstep for devices designed to be glanced at from various places in a room, but provided you don’t place it directly in a sunbeam, you should get by just fine.
Compared to the original Echo Show 15, the audio is much improved, offering surprisingly punchy sound from the two 2-inch woofers and 0.6-inch tweeters. Still, if you’re particular about image and sound quality, it’s an idea to hook up better speakers, as I found the speakers to be modest at best.
The new, auto-framing, 3.3x zoom 13MP camera is a notable improvement for better Alexa Drop-Ins, and that’s paired with the on-board proximity sensor on board, which not only helps to control the screen’s brightness, turning it on when someone approaches the device, but also it’s content. Using facial or voice-recognition, the Echo Show will display content relevant to me – say, a TV show I’m mid-way through watching, but when my partner approaches the screen, it might show him his favorite artist.
In recent years, Amazon has added widgets to its smart displays, allowing you to more easily organise your life with shopping lists and calendars to daily reminders You can also customize the kinds of information you see day-to-day, like local weather reports or smart home favorites to control your home. Worth highlighting is that Alexa+ has its own distinctive UI from what we’ve seen, which only adds to this customizability.
Support is provided for Matter and Thread, which means you can use the Echo Show 15 and 21 as a Zigbee Hub, and setup is just as easy as the rest of Amazon’s Echo range.
The only thing that distinguishes these two models in the performance department, really, is that the pixel density is slightly lower on the Echo Show 21 owing to its larger size; it’s not visible to the untrained eye, though, so I’d call this particular battle a draw.
Winner:Tie
Which one should you buy?
Technically speaking, the Echo Show 15 wins this one due to its versatility and lower price point, but with these two devices being near-identical it’s a pretty close match. Ultimately, it’s as much about what you’ll want to use the devices for; if you want to watch TV and movies and have a nice big screen to display your important updates, the Echo Show 21 is the way to go. For more of a countertop solution with a more lightweight frame, it’s the Echo Show 15.
Of course, all of this could well change once we’ve had some proper hands-on time with Alexa+, depending on how that interface renders; my guess would be, however, that the new AI-bolstered voice assistant won’t be changing the game that drastically.
It seems likeGoogleLabsis launching anew AI toolnearly every week, and this week is no different. Google just launchedDoppl, a free experimental app (currently U.S. only) that takes shopping to the next level by letting users see virtually how the clothes will fit.
Gone are the days of browsing static model images, that may or may not resemble your own body. Now you upload a full-body photo and see how clothes fit on you and — get this — even move, on you. And it’s all powered by AI.
Shopping online and see something you like? Just open the app and follow these steps:
Upload or snap: Choose a photo of yourself. A full body shot is recommended. Then, pick out an outfit fromInstagram, a website, or even an online thrift store catalog, and Doppl overlays the garment onto an animated version of you.
Motion simulation: What makes Doppl different is that, instead of a flat image of you “wearing” the outfit, the app creates a short AI-generated video that shows how the clothes might drape and move as you walk or turn
Save and share: Still deciding if you want to buy? Save your favorite virtual looks or send the AI-generated clips to friends via social media
Google already offers a “Try On” feature in AI Mode Search, but that shows clothing on a static image of yourself and only works within the browser.
Doppl gives users a more realistic preview because you get both the visual accuracy and the added realism of clothing movement—making it feel more like an in-store fit.
Doppl is better than guessing as animated previews help users assess fit, style and flow before buying. Designed for today’s shopper who loves sharing on social media and discovering thrift finds, there’s now no need for users to track brand listings.
Plus, it’s fun and free to use. Now available in the U.S. on iOS or Android, no subscription is required.
How to try it
DownloadDopplfrom the U.S. App Store or Google Play. Upload a full-body photo or use the built-in AI model. Upload outfit images from your gallery or screenshots. Preview the animated look—and save or share your favorites.
Remember, as with any experimental AI app, it’s not perfect. Google warns that fit and visual details might not always be accurate.
Google has mentioned that it intends to expand it internationally, and future updates will likely include more fashion categories, better movement fidelity and refined image-processing algorithms.
Ironing out some wrinkles
Doppl is still in experimental mode, so don’t be surprised if things don’t run smoothly. Some examples of problems I ran into included lagging, glitching or not completing the request at all.
New users may encounter bugs; even uploading a photo of yourself can sometimes trigger an error message.
To improve your experience, try uploading multiple full-body images to give the app more to work with. It also helps to have a few screenshots of outfits ready when you start, so you can jump right into trying things on without delays.
What about privacy?
To power its virtual try-on features, Doppl uses your photos, which may raise eyebrows for some users.
According to Google, the app collects and uses this data to improve its services while applying privacy safeguards to protect user information.
While Google says your data is handled responsibly, it’s worth noting thatany app requiring photo uploadsshould be approached with awareness, especially when personal images are involved.
The takeaway
If you’ve ever wanted to see how a thrifted jacket or an influencer’s outfit might look on you, Doppl’s AI-powered videos offer a surprisingly realistic solution.
It’s a smarter, more personal spin on Google’s Search ‘Try On’ feature — and all you need is your smartphone and perhaps a sense of humor, because it might not always look perfect.
The Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller is a must-have gamepad for the new console. Much like the original, it provides an astronomically more comfortable gaming experience than the pack-in Joy-Con 2 controllers, and rivals some of the best in the business when it comes to overall feel, build quality, performance, and – of course – battery life, which continues to be best-in-class for any console.
Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller: one-minute review
The Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller launched alongside the console itself, and I’ve been using it as my go-toSwitch 2gamepad since launch day. While I was already impressed with it at a Switch 2 hands-on preview event a few months back, actually having it at home has solidified it as perhaps my favorite controller of the year.
The mission statement is a simple one: provide an updated version of the excellent Nintendo Switch Pro Controller – easily one of thebest Nintendo Switch controllersfor that original console – while keeping the things players loved about that original model intact. I feel this has mostly been achieved with the Switch 2 Pro Controller.
It’s incredibly comfortable in the hands, sporting simply lovely build quality from chassis to buttons. The thumbsticks are ultra-smooth and responsive, and additions like two remappable buttons on the rear, as well as a headphone jack, are extremely welcome.
Furthermore, theoriginal Pro Controlleris remembered fondly for its frankly absurd battery life, lasting around 40 hours on a single charge. I’m happy to report that’s also the case with the Switch 2 Pro Controller; after three weeks of testing for a few hours most days, I’ve only just seen the low battery warning flash up on my screen.
So what’s holding it back from truly being the greatest of all time? Well, unlike the original Pro Controller, this new model isn’t currently compatible with PC. It’s likely we’ll need to wait for a Steam compatibility update, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens in the near future. I also would’ve loved a trigger lock feature, allowing players to switch between digital and analog sensitivities to suit a wider range of genres (analog triggers naturally work better for racing games, for example).
Lastly, Nintendo seemingly remains committed to not having Hall effect thumbsticks, which is a massive shame. What this means is that, eventually, I expect the Switch 2 Pro Controller to develop stick drift. Perhaps not as quickly as the Joy-Con 2 – of which there are already reports of users experiencing drift – but for a controller that costs as much as it does, the lack of sturdier Hall effect thumbsticks hurts. Doubly so, considering the sticks themselves feel fantastic during play.
Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller review: price and availability
$84.99 / £74.99 / AU$119.95
Cheaper on average than a set of Joy-Con 2 ($94.99 / £74.99 / AU$139.95)
A price increase in the US bumped it up from the originally planned $79.99
If there’s one potential criticism I can levy at the Switch 2 Pro Controller, it’s that it certainly isn’t cheap.
It’s available to purchase now from Nintendo’s own website as well as stocking retailers for $84.99 / £74.99 / AU$119.95. US folks have it slightly worse here due to a price increase that’s seen the controller’s RRP pushed up from the original $79.99.
Overall, though, the Switch 2 Pro Controller is cheaper in the US than a pair of Joy-Con 2 controllers ($94.99), while being priced the same as those in the UK (£74.99).
That said, cheaper alternatives do exist in controllers like the8BitDo Ultimate 2($69.99 / £59.99 – around AU$90). This is an exceptional controller that’s well worth looking into, especially as it’s recently received a firmware update to allow for Switch 2 connectivity.
Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller review: design and features
Pleasing light gray-on-black aesthetic design
Adds GameChat and GL/GR buttons, as well as a headphone jack
Otherwise, very similar to the original Pro Controller
Put the Switch 2 Pro Controller side by side with the original model, and you’ll notice a lot of similarities. Its large face buttons are about the same size here, the d-pad is very similar, and the controller still uses digital triggers. I think an option for quicker triggers would’ve been nice here, via trigger locks, for genres like racing games. But there are some other upgrades here that I’m very happy about.
The Switch 2 Pro Controller adds some very welcome features. There’s a dedicated GameChat button like we see on the Joy-Con 2 for accessing the console’s bespoke voice chat system. Additionally, you’re getting a 3.5mm headphone jack, which – alarmingly – wasn’t present on the original Pro Controller. Lastly, a pair of GL/GR buttons on the rear of the pad can be remapped on a per-game basis, though I’ll touch more on those in the following performance section.
In terms of looks, the Switch 2 Pro Controller is simple, but pretty eye-catching. The semi-translucent look of the original has been replaced with a matte black shell. Meanwhile, the top that houses the bumpers and triggers – as well as the thumbstick shafts – have taken on a light gray coating that I think looks nice juxtaposed against the otherwise all-black gamepad. I wouldn’t say it’s winning any awards in the aesthetics department, but it’s a simple and elegant design that doesn’t look out of place.
Otherwise, there isn’t much to report on the design front beyond the fact that this is an incredibly comfortable asymmetrical controller that sits firmly in the hands. I find that the Switch 2 Pro Controller’s grips are of a perfect size, and the pad fits snugly in my hands with my index fingers set firmly on the triggers. I felt this way about the original Pro Controller, too, but its successor does feel ever so slightly more refined in this regard.
Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller review: Performance
Thumbsticks feel excellent during gameplay
A frankly absurd amount of battery life
GL/GR buttons are actually a godsend
Right away, let’s talk about the thing that most people fondly remember the original Pro Controller for – its seemingly endless battery life. While there have been no noticeable improvements here with the Switch 2 Pro Controller, I can’t exactly say that’s a bad thing.
Yep, you can expect this new model to go the distance with around 40-45 hours of battery life. Since launch, on average, I’ve played my Switch 2 with the Pro Controller for around 1-3 hours daily.
Three weeks later, I have only just seen the low battery warning flash up on my screen. This is absolutely best-in-class battery life that leaves even the best Nintendo Switch controllers in the dust. It is worth noting that such a hefty battery does take some time to charge up again – around 3-4 hours to be exact – but do this overnight via USB-C and you’ll never need to worry about running out of juice.
Otherwise, the Switch 2 Pro Controller is just a joy to play games with. The thumbsticks are the real heroes here, feeling almost impossibly smooth and incredibly responsive during play.
This makes precise platformers likeSuperMario3D World + Bowser’s Furyor white knuckle racers likeF-Zero GXfeel fantastic to play (even if the latter still benefits more from the wireless GameCube controller’s button layout).
My one gripe here would be that the thumbsticks are not Hall effect, with Nintendo seemingly opting once again for more traditional potentiometers. It’s a frustrating commitment that we also see fromSonyandMicrosoftin their first-party pads, and as a result, it’s currently hard to gauge just how long the Switch 2 Pro Controller’s sticks will last before developing drift. That said, the thumbsticks here do feel decidedly sturdier than those on the Joy-Con 2, so I do expect them to last a good deal longer.
However, I think my favorite addition to the Switch 2 Pro Controller has to be the rear GL/GR buttons. We’ve seen remappable buttons like these on countless third-party controllers, but I really like how Nintendo has implemented them. By holding down the Home button while in-game, you’ll bring up a quick menu that lets you assign GL and GR as secondary inputs.
This works on a per-game basis, too, meaning you don’t need to constantly reassign them while you’re hopping from game to game. They can be an absolute lifesaver, too. InThe Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom,for example, I bound the sprint and jump actions to these buttons, letting me still have access to camera controls.
Similarly, inHyrule Warriors: Definitive Edition,binding the left and right d-pad inputs to GL/GR let me cycle through my inventory of items without having to stop moving or adopt an awkward claw grip instead.
Otherwise, you can expect a controller that performs just as well as the original where it counts. Gyro aiming is still incredibly solid and accurate for games likeSplatoon 3,and you still have near-field communication (NFC) support for scanning amiibo figures in your favorite games.
Should I buy the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller?
Buy it if…
You want a cheaper (and better) Joy-Con 2 alternative Sure, you’re not getting the Joy-Con 2’s fancy directional rumble or their aptitude for co-op play. But given the lower US price point, higher comfort factor, and sublime thumbsticks and GL/GR buttons, the Pro Controller wins out for me.
You prefer wireless play You’re absolutely laughing here, as the Switch 2 Pro Controller seriously goes the distance in terms of battery life, putting in an impressive 40+ hours on an average full charge.
Don’t buy it if…
You’re on a budget While I wholeheartedly recommend the Switch 2 Pro Controller at its price point, I can’t say it’s exactly cheap. There are more affordable options around $10-$20 cheaper that do a similar job, such as the excellent 8BitDo Ultimate 2, or indeed the original Pro Controller.
You’ve had bad luck with stick drift Without drift-resistant Hall effect sticks, I can’t say for sure just how long the Switch 2 Pro Controller’s thumbsticks will last before developing drift. If you’ve fallen foul of stick drift in the past, you may want to consider some alternatives.
Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller review: Also consider
If the Switch 2 Pro Controller isn’t exactly what you’re after, there are a couple of great alternatives for you to consider.
The Xiaomi 15 Ultra is being re-released in three limited colors and, at the same time, is getting a brand-new camera grip that differs from the older Photography Kit in both design and functionality.
Xiaomi has developed a brand new camera handle for the Xiaomi 15 Ultra. (Image source: Xiaomi)
The Xiaomi 15 Ultra is getting three limited editions in purple, aquamarine and brown. The flagship was previously only available in white, black and silver. Xiaomi retains the two-part design of the back from the silver variant – one strip is made of silver metal, while the area underneath has a colorful leather cover.
This division gives the smartphone a look vaguely reminiscent of rangefinder cameras of yesteryear. Probably not a coincidence, given that the Xiaomi 15 Ultra is primarily aimed at photography enthusiasts. Even more exciting is that Xiaomi has also unveiled a new Photography Kit, which is also available in the three aforementioned colors. This “fashion photography kit” features a much more rounded camera grip, making it appear “softer” and less prominent than the older Photography Kit.
The range of functions has been reduced somewhat – the new camera grip only has a dedicated shutter button that also recognizes when it is half-pressed in order to, for example, lock the autofocus and autoexposure. There is also a button for starting a video recording. Weighing 42 grams, the new grip is also lighter, but likely lacks an integrated battery. Further details on the Xiaomi 15 Ultra can be found in ourdetailed review.
Price and Availability
Xiaomi has not yet confirmed when or at what price the new versions of the Xiaomi 15 Ultra or the new Photography Kit will be launched.
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL in a Mous case (left), Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra in a Mous case (right), OnePlus 13 (top)
There’s no denying that theiPhone 16 Procounts among thebest camera phonesin 2025, but if you’re not interested in usingApple’s wares, the Android side of the fence has a far more varied and versatile range of alternatives to consider.
Three of the best and brightest right now come from Google, OnePlus, andSamsung, whose 2025 flagships all boast top-tier performance and the latest AI smarts, while also touting some of the finest photographic abilities in the mobile space.
ThePixel 9 Prosports the series’ most advanced imaging hardware, backed by the brand’s ever-impressive AI-enabled post-processing magic. TheOnePlus 13once again features a camera system tuned by famed photography brand Hasselblad, and theGalaxy S25 Ultraoffers a variety of large sensors with Samsung’s richest image and video toolset to date.
Each of the scenarios tested in this comparison will include a category winner, but while one phone might demonstrate technical superiority over its rivals, ultimately, the best phone here depends on which you think took the best photos overall.
Some phones favor accuracy, while others deliver more stylized and striking shots, which might be more to your taste. Read on to see how these three camera kings compare.
Note:Unless otherwise specified, comparison shots in galleries are presented in the following order: Pixel, OnePlus, Galaxy.
Pro controls, 10-bit HDR video, Magic Editor, Best Take, Add Me, Photo Unblur, Motion Mode, Real Tone, Night Sight, Astrophotography, Top Shot, Live HDR+, Video Boost
ProVisual Engine, Reflection removal, Generative fill, Astrophotography, Pro Mode, Pro VideoMode, Dual Recording, Nightography, Instant Slow-mo, Photo Assist, Super HDR, Super Steady video
Let’s start with the camera you’re likely to use the majority of the time: the main sensor. Below are shots taken without edits, as if you’d just opened the camera app, lined up your subject, and hit the shutter.
As a result, we can compare just how each phone’s camera has been tuned to handle everything from white balance and color reproduction to dynamic range and detail.
This brightly backlit statue poses a good challenge for the average camera phone; not just because of the high contrast scene, but as a result of the muted tones of the stonework, which juxtapose the vibrant blue sky and bright clouds behind.
The Pixel produced the most technically impressive shot, with itsHDRalgorithm ensuring detail was retained even in the darkest areas of the scene. Lots of color information was retained, too, with accurate blues and reds in the sky and flag, as well as reflecting off the front of the statue itself.
One criticism would be that, perhaps, the HDR processing is too heavy-handed, resulting in a flatter and less dynamic image.
As for the OnePlus 13, what’s assumed to be a slightly more limited dynamic range, paired with heavier-handed processing, results in a more dramatic shot, with a darker overall appearance and more pronounced shadows.
While the stopped-down (i.e. decreased aperture) scene delivers richer detail in the bright cloud compared to the Pixel, the result is otherwise underexposed, while color depth appears lacking when comparing the RA poster in the right of frame.
Lastly, we have the S25 Ultra’s take: a Goldilocks result, which delivers better processing than the OnePlus but retains more shadows than the Pixel, resulting in a more dynamic image.
While exposure and colors look natural, as we’ve seen before, the large blocks of color – like the sky – highlight issues with image depth, showing obvious colour banding, not present in the Pixel’s images. Nonetheless, the Ultra produces the most appealing shot of the three here.
Winner:Galaxy S25 Ultra
Corner windows
Each phone’s 2x zoom crops in on the main sensor, paired with some post-capture clean-up to produce a final image.
As discovered in ouriPhone 16 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro, Galaxy S25 Ultra camera comparison, Pixel shots have a tendency to skew towards magenta hues, while the S25 Ultra’s sport a more true-to-life – but still distinct – green/yellow tint, and that’s apparent here.
The OnePlus’ shot here looks closer to the S25 than the Pixel, but arrives at a distinctly different conclusion with regards to exposure and contrast. It’s more dramatic and interesting, but lacks finesse, especially in the finer details.
Detail capture goes to the Pixel for presenting a more natural-looking image, while the Ultra serves up sharper detail at the expense of looking over-processed.
Winner:Pixel 9 Pro
Chelsea Flower Show
This naturally lit close-up shot of a table arrangement at the Chelsea Flower Show tests for things like color science, depth of field, and lens distortion.
Aside from the fact that I didn’t realize until after the fact that the Pixel focused on the background instead of the foreground, like the other two phones, it performed admirably.
Contrary to expectations, the Pixel stopped down compared to both the OnePlus and Galaxy, resulting in accurate colors but slight underexposure versus the reality of the scene. Dynamic range, too, appears lacking compared to other Pixel shots, suggesting a degree of inconsistency not seen from the other phones’ main sensors.
The OnePlus 13 delivered a brighter and well-colored image, with a natural depth of field. However, the quality of the bokeh (background blur) just wasn’t as well handled as on the Samsung.
The result from the S25 Ultra was otherwise very similar to the OnePlus, although the brand’s penchant for punchy hue robs the shot of authentic color, with the magentas in particular pushing towards fluorescent.
Winner:OnePlus 13
Macro
All three phones possess a dedicated macro shooting mode, which uses their respective ultra-wide sensors to allow you to get as close as 2 (in the case of the OnePlus 13) to 3cm (the Pixel and Galaxy) away from a subject in order to capture minute close-up details.
Below, we’re comparing macro shots of an orange rose, captured using both the dedicated macro mode on each phone and their main sensors.
Ultra-wide
Although accurately colored, the Pixel’s post-processing removed much of the high-contrast information from the image, stripping out specular highlights, resulting in a very flat image.
By contrast, the OnePlus 13 actually did the best job of retaining color information and managing dynamic range, detail, and depth of field.
The S25 Ultra’s result looks pleasing at first blush, save for the fact that it completely miscolored the subject. Its penchant for heavier post-processing results in the sharpest final image, but this comes at the expense of more artifacting and distortion towards the edge of the frame.
Winner:OnePlus 13
Main sensor
It’s a similar story when using these phones’ main sensors; however, the Galaxy S25 Ultra does a much better job of correctly coloring the image. It’s almost as if the algorithm Samsung is using assumes that, as most photos of roses are red, the one in this image should be colored as such, but that’s just speculation on my part.
Nonetheless, the Pixel’s result is still too flat, while the OnePlus delivers the most dynamic and appealing shot overall.
Winner:OnePlus 13
Zoom
If you’re familiar with the last few generations of Samsung’s Ultra series, you’ll know that they come equipped with the most competent optical hardware for telephoto photography.
The S25 Ultra boasts both a 3x and 5x optical telephoto snapper, along with a 100x ceiling, which, although not necessarily usable at full extension, allows for effective long-range capture at magnification below this threshold, all the way down to 10x.
Such powerful photographic hardware doesn’t automatically grant the Galaxy the win, however.
Pixel 9 Pro at 0.5x zoom
Pixel 9 Pro at 1x zoom
Pixel 9 Pro at 2x zoom
Pixel 9 Pro at 5x zoom
Pixel 9 Pro at 10x zoom
Pixel 9 Pro at 30x zoom
The Pixel comes with the most limited focal range of all three phones, topping out at 30x magnification. 30x shots are pretty soft but remain usable, which can’t be said for the peak of its rivals’ respective zoom ranges.
At every focal length before its maximum, the Pixel 9 Pro’s zoom impresses. Even at 10x, you’re getting crisp details, authentic colors, and great dynamic range.
OnePlus 13 at 0.6x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 1x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 2x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 3x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 6x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 10x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 20x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 30x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 60x zoom
OnePlus 13 at 120x zoom
There’s minimal color distortion and impressive management of white balance, exposure, and dynamic range throughout the OnePlus’ zoom.
However, over-processing – especially past 10x magnification – leads to excessive edge detection and erroneous contrast management. The fact that shots at the phone’s maximum 120x zoom range are still usable impresses, though.
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 0.5x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 1x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 2x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 3x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 5x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 10x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 30x zoom
Galaxy S25 Ultra at 100x zoom
Besides its punchier color science, the zoom shots out of the S25 Ultra deliver everything that the Pixel does but across a wider array of focal lengths.
Sure, it’s 100x maximum isn’t readily usable, but Samsung’s post-processing here is more elegant than OnePlus’, meaning it takes the crown.
Winner:Galaxy S25 Ultra
Low light
Modern phones use all sorts of tricks to capture decent images when there’s minimal light available, from longer exposure times to bracketing and compositing.
These three use all these tricks and more to capture worthwhile images in low light. And for reference, the first image below is a representation of how dark it actually was when capturing these images, so you know just how much work each phone has done to produce its resultant shot.
A reference shot for the real-world lighting conditions in this scene
Standard Photo Mode
Imagine you opened your phone’s camera, didn’t switch to Night mode, and just snapped a shot. That’s what this first sample emulates.
The Pixel captured decent detail and color corrected as close as possible to the colors you’d see if these potted plants had been shot in daylight. The OnePlus, meanwhile, nailed the white balance but lacks the same degree of detail retention.
As for the S25 Ultra, heavier processing presents seemingly sharper imagery, even if that results in a slightly more synthetic overall appearance. As for color correction, it presents a similar result to the Pixel, but with increased saturation, resulting in a loss of color accuracy towards the edge of the frame.
Winner:Pixel 9 Pro
Night Mode
You’ll get better Night Mode shots depending on how still you hold each phone, as they can detect hand-shake and shorten exposure time to compensate.
Night Mode images taken in the hand last three seconds in the case of the Pixel and OnePlus, and eight for the Samsung.
However, set these phones down on a flat surface or use a tripod (and in the case of the OnePlus, actively enable Tripod Mode too), and those shutter times jump to 10 and 25 seconds – in the case of the latter two phones, at least. The Pixel seemingly didn’t feel the need to use a longer exposure, making its result all the more impressive.
The main difference between the Pixel’s own standard and Night Mode shots is even more accurate colors and significantly improved fine detail, while the phone also keeps noise and grain in check. And it’s much the same story with the OnePlus 13.
Activating Night mode on the S25 Ultra delivers the most meaningful improvement against its base Photo Mode result, with greater detail capture and more accurate colors. That said, against its rivals, it still lacked the same degree of fidelity overall.
The OnePlus renders a scene with more detail across the entirety of the frame, but the Pixel’s result is in a league of its own.
Winner:Pixel 9 Pro
Astrophotography Mode
Pixel 9 Pro
Galaxy S25 Ultra
If you lock the Pixel and Galaxy down in a tripod, you also gain access to an Astrophotography Mode, designed to let you capture the night sky. This is something the OnePlus 13 lacks entirely.
In the case of the Pixel, the shutter icon in Night Mode changes to show that the option is available. Tapping it results in a protracted capture time of approximately 4 minutes.
The process of taking astrophotography shots on the S25 Ultra is a little less elegant, if only because it isn’t a feature within the phone’s native camera app. Instead, you have to download Samsung’s separate Expert RAW camera app, wherein you’ll find the Astrophotography Mode, with the option to capture short (three-minute), medium (six-minute), and long (12-minute) exposures.
Whilst novel, neither result here is particularly mind-blowing (although I have seen Astrophotography Mode on both phones lead to some impressive results in other scenarios). The Pixel leads on sharpness, while the S25 Ultra’s image is considerably brighter and more vivid, but also much, much softer.
Winner:Tie
Video
Shooting4K60fps footage on a windy, sunny beach proved an interesting challenge for our three Android champs.
All three demonstrated excellent image stabilization and fast autofocus. While it’s a closely run race between the Pixel and the OnePlus, Google’s phone demonstrated better exposure control (you could see the OnePlus stopping up and down, as it tried to compensate for the available light), as well as marginally clearer audio.
Provided you’re comfortable with Samsung’s signature, more saturated look, however, the S25 Ultra delivered the most attractive footage overall. It offers vibrant-but-realistic colors and the most impressive wind noise reduction and voice separation of these rivals, by quite a margin.
Both the Pixel and Galaxy also allow for AI-backed targeted noise reduction after the fact, to further improve audio quality and reduce background din; another feature the OnePlus 13 lacks.
Winner:Galaxy S25 Ultra
Conclusion
Over the seven categories and 12 sets of photos and videos in this comparison, the S25 Ultra proved to be the overall champ, with key strengths in zoom and portrait photography, as well as video capture.
Our guide to thebest camera phonesdescribes Samsung’s flagship as “the best camera phone for influencers,” and I’m inclined to agree with that assessment given its ability to take dramatic photos that explode with color.
The Pixel 9 Pro is great at capturing fine detail without leaving images over-processed; not to mention it continues the series’ long-standing talent for low-light mastery.
Meanwhile, although the OnePlus 13 may still have some catching up to do, it shouldn’t be discounted, considering its talent for macro shots and portrait flexibility.
Ultimately, whichever phone has the right strengths for your needs, there are no bad options here.
Even if you’re cautious, there’s always a chance that a virus could sneak onto your PC. Sure, Windows does have built-in security to block malware, but all it takes is one wrong click. Maybe it’s a sketchy link, a shady browser extension, or a random file from a site you probably shouldn’t have trusted. If your PC is acting weird and showing signs of malware, you might be wondering if a factory reset can fix it.
A factory reset wipes everything on your PC, including your apps, photos, videos, and files. It also reinstalls Windows and puts all your settings back to how they were when you first got the computer. In most cases, a factory reset should get rid of any viruses or malware hanging around. It’ll also make your PC run like new and fix any performance issues or software glitches you’ve been dealing with.
Windows offers more than one way to reset your PC, so it’s important to pick the right one. If you go with the option that keeps your files, it may not fully remove the malware. If you’re on Windows 11, you can head to Settings > System > Recovery. For Windows 10, go to Settings > Update & security > Recovery. Then, click the Reset PC button, and you’ll see two options. Pick the “Remove Everything” option to wipe everything clean.
While doing a factory reset can help remove malware, it may not always work. Some viruses are sneaky enough to survive even a full reset. This usually happens when the malware has infected something deeper, like the BIOS or your motherboard. Since a factory reset doesn’t affect those areas, certain types of viruses can stick around, even after you’ve wiped everything. These are often known as rootkits, and they’re especially good at hiding. A rootkit can let the attacker take full control of your PC and steal your data without much effort.
If your PC keeps crashing with a Blue Screen of Death, or you notice strange changes to your browser or system that you didn’t make, it might be a sign of a rootkit. This kind of malware isn’t very common, but if you feel your PC might be infected, try running the Microsoft Defender’s Offline Scan. It works outside of Windows after a restart, which helps it catch and remove anything trying to hide. Here’s how to run it.
Click the search icon on the taskbar, type “Windows Security”, and hit Enter. Go to the Virus & threat protection tab. Click Scan options. Select Microsoft Defender Antivirus (offline scan) and click Scan now. Finally, click Scan to confirm. The scan should only take about 15 minutes. Your PC will restart during it, so make sure you save anything you’re working on first.
Doing a factory reset deletes all your personal data, so you’ll probably back everything up to a hard drive or flash drive first. But if one of those files is infected with malware, or if the backup drive itself has something nasty on it, the malware could sneak right back in after the reset. Before you copy anything back over, it’s important to scan the backup drive using a different computer.
Malware can also hide in other external devices like a USB hub, printer, or Wi-Fi adapter. That usually only happens if some sketchy, unsigned firmware gets installed. It’s rare, but it’s still worth being careful and protecting your system.
Windows Security does a solid job of protecting your system, but it’s still wise to have an antivirus program just to be safe. Microsoft also suggests keeping your PC up to date with the latest security patches. And, of course, you should follow the best security practices. Try to avoid clicking on suspicious links, don’t open unknown attachments, and only install apps and software from sources you trust. Doing all of this should help keep your PC safe from viruses and other threats.
Echo Show 15
Echo Show 15
(Image credit: Google Labs)
>>>
Pixel 9 Pro at 1x zoom
