Connect with us

Technologies

Apple Should Build Its AR on the Meta Quest

Commentary: Its glasses may be on hold, but the immediate future is already in front of us.

Apple’s first-ever VR-AR or «mixed reality» device is expected this year, and already its follow-up product seems to be on hold. According to Bloomberg’s reliable Mark Gurman, a planned set of AR glasses isn’t coming from Apple anytime soon. That’s OK: AR glasses don’t seem like they’re imminent from anyone.

After a trip to Las Vegas to try out some of the emerging technologies around future VR and AR headsets, one thing is increasingly clear: Everyone’s trying to figure out AR glasses, but everyone’s trying to perfect VR headsets. The difference between those two scenarios is bigger than you think.

All-day AR glasses that are useful, work convincingly, have long enough battery life, work with your phone and function as actually legit prescription glasses haven’t materialized, although the pieces are coming into place. Companies like Meta have promised a decade-long path to these glasses. It turns out, maybe, that’s going to be the case for everyone else, too. I’ve seen smart glasses that look real but don’t do much, or glasses with AR that feel chunky and do some things, but don’t quite work with my vision and can’t figure out how to work with my phone yet. Chipmaker Qualcomm is working on this; Google, Apple and Samsung need to solve it someday, too.

In the meantime, VR already has a very real and reasonably popular product that most families I know in the everyday world are familiar with: the Meta (formerly Oculus) Quest 2.

Read more: The Quest 2 Is Still the Best VR Headset For Now

That recognition is no small thing. I think of the Quest’s place in everyday life like the Amazon Echo was years ago: something odd that over time became familiar, normalized. Something reasonably priced, and good enough to do a few things actually well. The Quest 2 is basically a game console. Where Meta has struggled is figuring out how to expand that base beyond gamers.

Following Meta’s playbook is something I expected Apple would do. Heck, I expect most companies are going to do it. The Quest 2 works just like most people imagine it will, or better. It’s a bit of instant magic that’s totally wire-free.

The Quest 2 does have downsides. In fact, those problems emerge the more you use it. I find connecting with friends and social spaces gets weird and buggy, prone to lag, disconnects and way-too-basic avatars. The battery life is bad. For fitness apps, which the Quest 2 can do surprisingly well, it’s still not good at really managing sweat or keeping my glasses from fogging.

Even though Meta wants the Quest 2 and higher-end, work-focused Quest Pro to open up new ways to work by creating virtual monitors around my laptop, the connections and display quality aren’t good enough to be more than a clever experiment most of the time. I can see my laptop keyboard with the Quest Pro’s passthrough cameras, but typing feels awkward and nowhere near as good as when I’m just on my laptop… and I can’t see my phone screen to check messages, either. The Quest can show me phone notifications like a basic smartwatch from a decade ago, but I can’t interact with them.

These VR headsets can even do some basic AR, using passthrough cameras that «mix reality» to show the real world in fuzzier video, with VR layered on top. The effect is sometimes pretty amazing, and could even approach feelings I’ve had with early AR headsets like the Microsoft HoloLens 2.

So where does that put Apple? Clearly, there’s a headset coming soon. And according to Bloomberg’s Gurman, the next goal after this first expensive headset is to work on a more affordable model. It’s like Meta’s approach to the Quest and Quest Pro, in reverse. And there are plenty of things Apple could focus on to make its entry into VR (and AR) worth the effort.

Better comfort, better fitness

The Quest 2 is already an affordable fitness device, and pairs with watches to show heart rate and fitness stats. Apple clearly has an advantage on time spent developing the Apple Watch, fitness and health tracking, and its Fitness Plus subscription video workouts, which also have overlaid fitness stats.

Apple could emphasize workouts and fitness on its headset, with comfortable, breathable straps and face pieces that could feel better for exercise. Meta is starting to realize it needs to improve comfort for VR: A recent Razer partnership using head straps made by CPAP-maker ResMed shows a need for better materials. I’d expect Apple to make this aspect a key part of the headset’s advantages. There are other advantages, too. Apps like Beat Saber and Supernatural use music for fitness, and Apple already has all of Apple Music at its disposal.

Connect better with laptops, iPads, phones, watches

VR headsets right now have an extremely hard time working well with all the other things we have lying around us. I can’t get a Quest to connect nicely with my phone all the time. To work with my laptop, I need a specialized third-party app with its own thing I have to install on my laptop and turn on.

Meanwhile, Apple has been focusing on handoffs and continuity across AirPods, HomePods, iPhones, Apple Watches, MacBooks, Apple TVs… all over the place. That’s what’s needed to make a VR headset seem seamless and integrated into other stuff. I want to check my watch in VR, or use it to control apps. Or use my phone, and also see the phone. Suddenly grab my laptop, and the headset connects. Incoming calls? No problem. Send myself things back and forth from my phone or laptop and get all the files and things I want, and not feel like I’m on a vacation from them. That’s what Apple’s headset could set out to achieve.

That’s a best-case scenario. Much like the first Apple Watch and iPhone, the actual Day 1 functions of this headset might end up disappointing.

Better social

Even though the metaverse is on everyone’s minds, there aren’t many big social spaces in VR that work well. Microsoft’s Altspace is nice, but often feels empty. VRChat is wild, experimental, full of big features and ideas, and feels like a messy explosion that’s hard to jump into. Meta can’t get enough people into Horizon Worlds. Even when these platforms do work, for concerts or events, the limits on people who can attend at once, the lag and drop-off, not to mention the avatar limits, make it a trade-off versus any other way you could connect on a phone or laptop.

Apple may not be able to solve this any better for larger-scale experiences, but for more intimate and several-person FaceTime-like moments, Apple could make shared experiences in VR work a lot better. Meta hasn’t perfected social VR yet, and someone needs to.

Can Apple make a better controller? (Or none?)

The Quest 2 controllers are fine, but all of VR leans on the same game controller-like inputs for headsets. Apple’s headset could lean more on hand tracking, or wearable inputs like the Apple Watch. I’m curious if a more work-oriented controller or accessory can be created that makes the headset feel better for taking on apps beyond games. Meta’s working on a long-term, game-changing shift to neural input wristbands eventually, but it’s unclear whether this approach will end up succeeding.

The Quest platform has continually improved its hand tracking over the years. However, hand tracking’s reliance on particular gestures without any physical feedback is an imperfect solution right now. Maybe Apple tries hand tracking along with using an Apple Watch or the iPhone for tactile haptic feedback, or finds a smaller go-between accessory.

I’ve been trying out experimental haptic technology recently, trying to imagine how VR could think its way to new inputs. This headset feels like the biggest opportunity Apple’s ever faced to create a brand-new type of input device that could make a big impact on the landscape. If it’s done right, maybe it’ll be the input accessory that makes its future AR glasses, whenever they arrive, seem feasible.

Build out more interesting mixed reality

For all the Meta Quest Pro promises to blend AR and VR with its mixed-reality capabilities, not many apps tap into its extras yet. I’ve seen some mind-blowing demos of mixed reality in VR with the ultra-high-end Varjo XR-3 connected to a PC, which at least showed me ways that a VR headset could begin to feel like a portal interconnected to my own home reality. Apple could start experimenting with more engaging AR moments in a high-end VR headset, and at least get the ball rolling on things that work in advance of whenever its AR glasses are ready, years from now.

Smaller sessions in VR may make more sense right now

VR is a thing I don’t use all the time, and that’s true for most people. Maybe that’s exactly where Apple should start. It’s not a given we’ll want to wear AR glasses everywhere, or even what those glasses would be good for. In the meantime, a VR headset at home that’s meant to be worn sometimes, but not all the time, is the place most of us feel safest to start. It’s why the Quest is something people actually use.

It’s also a way to avoid dealing with questions of accommodating true prescription vision needs in everyday glasses, something no one’s succeeded in tackling, either. VR headsets sometimes need prescription inserts, but many just fit right over the glasses we already have. I prefer the easy-fit solution: I don’t need to make VR a thing I spend a whole day in. I’ll settle for a truly useful hour or two, and if Apple can make that hour or two even better than what we have now, that’s a big enough step forward for me.

Editor’s note, Jan. 20: Adds mention of Meta’s hand tracking for the Quest.

Technologies

AI Is Taking Over Social Media, but Only 44% of People Are Confident They Can Spot It, CNET Finds

Half of social media users said they want better labels on AI-generated and edited posts.

AI slop has infected every social media platform, from soulless images to bizarre videos and superficially literate text. The vast majority of US adults who use social media (94%) believe they encounter content that was created or altered by AI, but only 44% of US adults say they’re confident they can tell real photos and videos from AI-generated ones, according to an exclusive CNET survey. That’s a big problem.

There are a lot of different ways people are fighting back against AI content. Some solutions are focused on better labels for AI-created content, since it’s harder than ever to trust our eyes. Of the 2,443 respondents who use social media, half (51%) believed we need better AI labels online. Others (21%) believe there should be a total ban on AI-generated content on social media. Only a small group (11%) of respondents say they find AI content useful, informative or entertaining.

AI isn’t going anywhere, and it’s fundamentally reshaping the internet and our relationship with it. Our survey shows that we still have a long way to go to reckon with it.

Key findings

  • Most US adults who use social media (94%) believe they encounter AI content on social media, yet far fewer (44%) can confidently distinguish between real and fake images and videos.
  • Many US adults (72%) said they take action to determine if an image or video is real, but some don’t do anything, particularly among Boomers (36%) and Gen Xers (29%).
  • Half of US adults (51%) believe AI-generated and edited content needs better labeling. 
  • One in five (21%) believe AI content should be prohibited on social media, with no exceptions.

US adults don’t feel they can spot AI media

Seeing is no longer believing in the age of AI. Tools like OpenAI’s Sora video generator and Google’s Nano Banana image model can create hyperrealistic media, with chatbots smoothly assembling swaths of text that sound like a real person wrote them. 

So it’s understandable that a quarter (25%) of US adults say they aren’t confident in their ability to distinguish real images and videos from AI-generated ones. Older generations, including Boomers (40%) and Gen X (28%), are the least confident. If folks don’t have a ton of knowledge or exposure to AI, they’re likely to feel unsure about their ability to accurately spot AI.

People take action to verify content in different ways

AI’s ability to mimic real life makes it even more important to verify what we’re seeing online. Nearly three in four US adults (72%) said they take some form of action to determine whether an image or video is real when it piques their suspicions, with Gen Z being the most likely (84%) of the age groups to do so. The most obvious — and popular — method is closely inspecting the images and videos for visual cues or artifacts. Over half of US adults (60%) do this. 

But AI innovation is a double-edged sword; models have improved rapidly, eliminating the previous errors we used to rely on to spot AI-generated content. The em dash was never a reliable sign of AI, but extra fingers in images and continuity errors in videos were once prominent red flags. Newer AI models usually don’t make those pedestrian mistakes. So we all have to work a little bit harder to determine what’s real and what’s fake.

As visual indicators of AI disappear, other forms of verifying content are increasingly important. The next two most common methods are checking for labels or disclosures (30%) and searching for the content elsewhere online (25%), such as on news sites or through reverse image searches. Only 5% of respondents reported using a deepfake detection tool or website.

But 25% of US adults don’t do anything to determine if the content they’re seeing online is real. That lack of action is highest among Boomers (36%) and those in Gen X (29%). This is worrisome — we’ve already seen that AI is an effective tool for abuse and fraud. Understanding the origins of a post or piece of content is an important first step to navigating the internet, where anything could be falsified.

Half of US adults want better AI labels

Many people are working on solutions to deal with the onslaught of AI slop. Labeling is a major area of opportunity. Labeling relies on social media users to disclose that their post was made with the help of AI. This can also be done behind the scenes by social media platforms, but it’s somewhat difficult, which leads to haphazard results. That’s likely why 51% of US adults believe that we need better labeling on AI content, including deepfakes. Support was strongest among Millennials and Gen Z, at 56% and 55%, respectively.

Other solutions aim to control the flood of AI content shared on social media. All of the major platforms allow AI-generated content, as long as it doesn’t violate their general content guidelines — nothing illegal or abusive, for example. But some platforms have introduced tools to limit the amount of AI-generated content you see in your feeds; Pinterest rolled out its filters last year, while TikTok is still testing some of its own. The idea is to give every person the ability to permit or exclude AI-generated content from their feeds.

But 21% of respondents believe that AI content should be prohibited on social media altogether, no exceptions allowed. That number is highest among Gen Z at 25%. When asked if they believed AI content should be allowed but strictly regulated, 36% said yes. Those low percentages may be explained by the fact that only 11% find AI content provides meaningful value — that it’s entertaining, informative or useful — and that 28% say it provides little to no value.

How to limit AI content and spot potential deepfakes

Your best defense against being fooled by AI is to be eagle-eyed and trust your gut. If something is too weird, too shiny or too good to be true, it probably is. But there are other steps you can take, like using a deepfake detection tool. There are many options; I recommend starting with the Content Authenticity Initiative‘s tool, since it works with several different file types. 

You can also check out the account that shared the post for red flags. Many times, AI slop is shared by mass slop producers, and you’ll easily be able to see that in their feeds. They’ll be full of weird videos that don’t seem to have any continuity or similarities between them. You can also check to see if anyone you know is following them or if that account isn’t following anyone else (that’s a red flag). Spam posts or scammy links are also indications that the account isn’t legit.

If you want to limit the AI content you see in your social feeds, check out our guides for turning off or muting Meta AI in Instagram and Facebook and filtering out AI posts on Pinterest. If you do encounter slop, you can mark the post as something you’re not interested in, which should indicate to the algorithm that you don’t want to see more like it. Outside of social media, you can disable Apple Intelligence, the AI in Pixel and Galaxy phones and Gemini in Google Search, Gmail and Docs

Even if you do all this and still get occasionally fooled by AI, don’t feel too bad about it. There’s only so much we can do as individuals to fight the gushing tide of AI slop. We’re all likely to get it wrong sometimes. Until we have a universal system to effectively detect AI, we have to rely on the tools we have and our ability to educate each other on what we can do now.

Methodology

CNET commissioned YouGov Plc to conduct the survey. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The total sample size was 2,530 adults, of which 2,443 use social media. Fieldwork was undertaken Feb. 3-5, 2026. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all US adults (aged 18 plus).

Continue Reading

Technologies

My Galaxy A17 Review: Samsung’s $200 Phone Does It All… Slowly

Samsung’s lower-cost Galaxy phone hits all the right check boxes, but it’s easily overwhelmed when multitasking.

Our Experts

Headshot of Mike Sorrentino
Mike Sorrentino Senior Editor
Mike Sorrentino is a Senior Editor for Mobile, covering phones, texting apps and smartwatches — obsessing about how we can make the most of them. Mike also keeps an eye out on the movie and toy industry, and outside of work enjoys biking and pizza making.
Expertise Phones |Texting apps | iOS | Android | Smartwatches | Fitness trackers | Mobile accessories | Gaming phones | Budget phones | Toys | Star Wars | Marvel | Power Rangers | DC | Mobile accessibility | iMessage | WhatsApp | Signal | RCS
Why You Can Trust CNET
16171819202122232425+

Years of Experience

14151617181920212223

Hands-on Product Reviewers

6,0007,0008,0009,00010,00011,00012,00013,00014,00015,000

Sq. Feet of Lab Space

CNET’s expert staff reviews and rates dozens of new products and services each month, building on more than a quarter century of expertise.

samsung-galaxy-a17-5g-1

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G

Pros

  • Big and bright screen
  • Good photos for the price
  • Six years of software and security support

Cons

  • Multitasking can be rough
  • Noticeably sluggish

Samsung’s $200 Galaxy A17 5G makes me thankful that Android is so flexible. That’s because during my three weeks using the most affordable 2026 Galaxy phone, I kept running into roadblocks with the phone’s underpowered hardware.

Whenever I tried to run a navigation app on the phone at the same time as streaming music, I found that either the song had noticeable pauses and dips or the navigation app would automatically quit without any notice. This was especially frustrating when I realized I missed my subway stop while trying to make it to my friend’s concert. When the phone is doing just one of these tasks, the A17 loads them up fast and even feels smooth.

It’s a shame because the phone otherwise feels like a great value. It has access to nearly all the same apps and services found on more expensive Galaxy phones. I appreciated having Samsung’s Now bar, with dynamic notifications showing how much time is left on timers and important boarding pass information for my flights. Samsung’s Smart View lets me use Miracast to stream my phone’s display to a Roku TV, while most Android phones lately only include Chromecast support. Plus Samsung’s six-year promise of software and security updates is unmatched in this price range.

So while I do feel the Galaxy A17 is one of the best phones available for most people looking for a new device that’s under $200, it’s not an enthusiastic recommendation.

This phone could be great for someone who just wants a device that keeps things simple: Yes, you can make calls, send texts, take decent photos and stream videos from your favorite social media app for a low price. Just don’t expect the Galaxy A17 to excel at tasks that require some app juggling.

My Galaxy A17 navigation and music fix

I discovered a quick fix for when keeping multiple apps open puts too much strain on the phone, like when I used Google Maps and Apple Music at the same time. Open Settings: Search for Memory and you’ll bring up a page that lets you list your most important background apps as Excluded apps. This tells the Galaxy A17 to stop policing how much memory these take up, as the phone is actively checking and turning off apps that you might not need in the background. And with a limited 4GB of memory, I hit this strain constantly. 

While Samsung does let you convert some of its onboard storage into an additional 4GB of memory, the Galaxy A17 simply does not have enough space to make multitasking easy. While it’s not uncommon for phones in this price tier to struggle with complex tasks, it’s frustrating to see the Galaxy A17 stumble in common multitasking processes such as navigation or listening to music. 

Samsung Galaxy A17 design, software, battery

The Samsung Galaxy A17 might not have the trendy vegan leather look of the Moto G, but the A17 does make plastic look as good as you can get. My review unit came in black, and there’s also a blue option. The design mimics the newer Galaxy phones by assembling its rear cameras into a vertically aligned oval camera bar.

Along the front is the phone’s nice and bright 6.7-inch display, which runs at a 1,080p resolution. For its affordable price, the phone’s display is a highlight, and it runs smoothly at a 90Hz refresh rate. This made the phone particularly good for watching videos and browsing the web. While games looked good, the phone’s limited memory and processing power got in the way of them working well.

The Galaxy A17 comes with 4GB of memory and 128GB of storage, which have become fairly standard for phones at the $200 price range. But what bugs me is that this configuration is the same as what the Galaxy A15 offered two years ago, and when I reviewed that phone I also felt like the device struggled with some tasks. While Samsung has a RAM Plus setting to virtually expand the memory by «borrowing» from main storage, the limited space quickly became apparent whenever I tried to use the phone for multiple tasks.

The Galaxy A17 uses Samsung’s Exynos 1330 processor. In benchmark tests, it scored slightly lower than the MediaTek Dimensity 6300 powering the $180 Moto G Play that I recently tested. Even without the tests, it’s clear that you need to take things easy with the Galaxy A17. The phone would often crawl when I used it for basic tasks: When I swipe down from the top of the screen to look at notifications, there’s a noticeable delay between the swipe and the action on the screen. Playing music while texting sometimes works, and sometimes doesn’t. And sometimes when opening an app, I’d be greeted with a blank white screen while I waited for assets to load.

3DMark Wild Life Extreme

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G 355Motorola Moto G Power (2026) 385Motorola Moto G Play (2026) 383
Note: Longer bars indicate better performance

Geekbench 6.0

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G 935 1,738Motorola Moto G Power (2026) 795 2,107Motorola Moto G Play (2026) 790 2,032
  • Single-core
  • Multicore
Note: Longer bars indicate better performance

But when the phone works, I’ve been delighted by the way Samsung has been able to scale down its myriad of services to its $200 phone. Samsung Health, Samsung Wallet and Samsung’s Weather app are fully functional and even colorful. While audio plays only from a single speaker, it gets quite loud when I put on my news podcasts in the living room. Samsung no longer provides a headphone jack for its under-$200 phone, which began with last year’s A16, but it’s easy enough to listen through a  Bluetooth-connected pair of wireless earbuds or a cast audio to a speaker. 

The 5,000-mAh battery helps the phone last a little longer than a day of normal use. I typically ended a day with 30% to 40% of battery left. You’ll probably want to charge the phone every day and luckily it’s 25W wired charging speed filled the battery from 0% to 54% in 30 minutes. That’s quite good for the price, and likely means you’ll be able to charge the phone up while getting ready for the day.

In our 3-hour YouTube streaming battery test, the Galaxy A17 performs a hair better than Motorola’s $160 Moto G Play. It depleted to 81% by the time I’d finished testing its 5,000-mAh battery. The Play has a slightly bigger 5,200-mAh battery, which dropped to 79% during testing.

Galaxy A17 cameras

The cameras on the Samsung Galaxy A17 5G perform fairly well for the phone’s price. There’s a 50-megapixel wide-angle camera, a 5-megapixel ultrawide and a 2-megapixel macro for shooting close-up subjects. The photos I took at the pirate-themed Gasparilla Festival in Tampa, Florida managed to capture all the action without too much blurring. That said, the photos themselves aren’t very detailed, showing the camera suite’s limited capabilities.

The overcast day helped make colors come out, however it’s clear that the cameras don’t have a wide dynamic range and aren’t advanced enough to separate out dark hair from shadows. But for this price, that’s acceptable, as I’m glad to see so little motion blur.

The cameras were challenged more when trying to zoom in. Images taken with the preset 2x zoom had an abundance of crushed shadows making dark colors and textures, like hair, appear to blend together.

With a more stable subject under decent lighting, such as the chicken stir fry bowl I got at the parade, the images have a lot of detail when I didn’t use the zoom.

The phone’s autofocus was on the chicken, rice and vegetables, but the grass behind it and the fallen beads on the ground blend together because the main lens’ natural bokeh, which looks crunchy (instead of buttery smooth and dreamy).

This ultrawide photo of the same subject fares better, with some loss of detail on the dish. The background looks clearer as the ultrawide lens keeps more of the image, the grass, beads and trash in focus.

Like many phones in this price range, you’ll get the best results in environments with good lighting. In this photo from The Book Lounge in St. Petersburg, Florida, the bookshelves are on full display and the A17’s cameras are able to depict the text of most of the book covers. It does struggle with a few: Skin in the Game by William Miller in the top-right is slightly out of focus, which is probably due to the lower quality of the main camera’s optics.

And in this 2x photo, the shelf appears softer because the A17 has to crop in since there’s not a dedicated zoom lens. But the variety of the book colors still looks true to life.

Selfie photos taken with the 13-megapixel front-facing camera get the job done, but they’re not great. I’d share them with group chats, but probably wouldn’t post them publicly. I took the selfie below in a well-lit Manhattan diner. The image has a lot of detail in my face: Note my skin texture and hair.

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G: The bottom line

The Samsung Galaxy A17 5G’s big selling point is its $200 price and access to many modern Galaxy features. This phone might even be offered for free with a carrier deal. When it comes to basic tasks, the Galaxy A17 is capable of doing most of them, including phone calls, texting, tapping into the subway using Samsung Wallet, web browsing and simple photography in well-lit environments. 

But if you find yourself multitasking, just know that the Galaxy A17 quickly becomes frustrating. 

If you need a cheaper phone, the Galaxy A17 is currently the choice I’d recommend most for its variety of features. Just be easy with it.

Samsung’s $200 Galaxy A17: A Closer Look at the Essentials-Only Phone

See all photos

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G vs. Motorola Moto G Play (2026), Motorola Moto G Power (2026)

Samsung Galaxy A17 5G Motorola Moto G Play (2026) Motorola Moto G Power (2026)
Display size, resolution 6.7-inch AMOLED, 2,340×1,080 pixels, 90Hz refresh rate 6.7-inch LCD; 1,604×720 pixels; 120Hz refresh rate 6.8-inch LCD, 2,388×1,080 pixels, 120Hz refresh rate
Pixel density 385 ppi 263 ppi 387ppi
Dimensions (inches) 6.5×3.1×0.3 in 6.6x3x0.3 in 6.6x3x0.3 in
Dimensions (millimeters) 164.4×77.9×7.5mm 167.2×76.4×8.4 mm 167x77x8.7mm
Weight (ounces, grams) 192 g (6.8 oz) 202 g (7.1 oz) 208 g (7.3 ounces)
Mobile software Android 16 Android 16 Android 16
Camera 50-megapixel (wide), 5-megapixel (ultrawide), 2-megapixel (macro) 32-megapixel 50-megapixel (wide), 8-megapixel (ultrawide)
Front-facing camera 13-megapixel 8-megapixel 32-megapixel
Video capture 1,080p at 30fps 1,080p at 30fps 1080p at 60fps
Processor Samsung Exynos 1330 MediaTek Dimensity 6300 MediaTek Dimensity 6300
RAM/Storage 4GB + 128GB 4GB + 64GB 8GB + 128GB
Expandable storage Yes, microSD Yes microSD
Battery/Charger 5,000 mAh 5,200 mAh 5,200 mAh
Fingerprint sensor Side Side Side
Connector USB-C USB-C USB-C
Headphone jack None Yes Yes
Special features 25W wired charging, One UI 8.0, Smart View, Samsung Health, Samsung Wallet, IP54 dust- and water-resistance, six years of software and security updates Two years of software updates, three years of security updates, 18W wired charging, NFC, Gorilla Glass 3 30W wired charging, RAM Boost, Dolby Atmos, NFC, IP68 and IP69 water and dust resistance
Price off-contract (USD) $200 (128GB) $180 (64GB) $300 (128GB)

How we test phones

Every phone tested by CNET’s reviews team was actually used in the real world. We test a phone’s features, play games and take photos. We examine the display to see if it’s bright, sharp and vibrant. We analyze the design and build to see how it is to hold and whether it has an IP-rating for water resistance. We push the processor’s performance to the extremes using standardized benchmark tools like GeekBench and 3DMark, along with our own anecdotal observations navigating the interface, recording high-resolution videos and playing graphically intense games at high refresh rates.

All the cameras are tested in a variety of conditions from bright sunlight to dark indoor scenes. We try out special features like night mode and portrait mode and compare our findings against similarly priced competing phones. We also check out the battery life by using it daily as well as running a series of battery drain tests.

We take into account additional features like support for 5G, satellite connectivity, fingerprint and face sensors, stylus support, fast charging speeds and foldable displays, among others that can be useful. We balance all of this against the price to give you the verdict on whether that phone, whatever price it is, actually represents good value. While these tests may not always be reflected in CNET’s initial review, we conduct follow-up and long-term testing in most circumstances.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Nothing to Launch the Phone 4A On March 5, and Hints at Possible Pink Design

Nothing promises the Phone 4A will feature a «bold new experimentation of color.» We think we might know what that means.

British tech company Nothing has set a date for the launch of its upcoming Phone 4A. The latest midrange offering from the design-forward phone-maker will make an appearance on March 5 at the renowned London art school Central Saint Martin’s.

The phone launch will take place during one of the busiest weeks in the tech calendar, brushing up against both MWC (March 2-5) and Apple’s «special experience» on March 4, where the company might unveil the iPhone 17E. Still, what we might see at these rival events remains largely a mystery for now. Nothing, on the other hand, has given us a much clearer idea of what to expect when it livestreams the launch of the Phone 4A at 10.30 a.m. GMT (2.30 a.m. PT).

«We’re going to be focused on levelling up our A series with the 4A,» said Nothing CEO Carl Pei in a video he posted last month. «It’s our best-selling series and we’re really excited about taking this even closer to what a flagship experience is going to be across the board from materials, design to screen, camera, etc.»

The Phone 4A is the successor to the Phone 3A, which Nothing launched at a similar time last year. But it also builds on the success of the Phone 3, Nothing’s first true flagship, which arrived last summer. CNET reviewed both phones and we were especially taken with the Phone 3A series

«The Nothing Phone 3A Pro impressed me enough with its combination of value and performance that I awarded it a coveted CNET Editors’ Choice award,» said CNET Editor at Large Andrew Lanxon. «I want to see Nothing continue its focus on affordability while offering a phone that’s capable of handling all of the everyday essentials. I’d love to see some vibrant colors too as, let’s be honest, phones aren’t as interesting as they used to be

Pei has already promised that the phone will offer a «bold new experimentation of color,» and he might just have given us a hint as to what color he’s referring to — based on a graphic he posted to Instagram on Tuesday.

{«error»: {«message»: «Invalid OAuth access token — Cannot parse access token»,»type»: «OAuthException»,»code»: 190,»fbtrace_id»: «AI8l5CHUapEqFD2coAnU7VO»}
}

The image features Nothing’s name and the date of the Phone 4a launch event scrawled in bright pink graffiti-style lettering over the top of the invite to Apple’s March 4 «special experience.»

Pei has already said that the Phone 4A will continue the evolution of Nothing’s transparent design principles, and it would be a fun move for this latest device to glow bright pink. But Nothing is nothing if not bold when it comes to design. If any company can make an iconic neon pink phone work in 2026, it’s this one.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media