AllYouCanTech

Bellroy’s Pixel 10 Leather Cases Present Breathtaking Design

These leather cases are visually appealing and feature integrated magnets.

As someone who frequently changes phones every other week, I usually skip using cases. There are only two phones where I find them necessary — Pixels and iPhones. With only one iPhone model released each year, I think it’s wise to protect that device with a case.

I tend to keep Pixels the longest throughout a year, and although Google has improved its build quality over the last two years, I’ve damaged enough of its devices in the past to be cautious about breaking yet another phone. Just a day after receiving the [Pixel 10 Pro XL](https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/google-pixel-10-pro-review), I faced a small scare when the phone slipped and fell onto a tiled floor. Thankfully, there was no damage.

When it comes to using a case, I prefer leather-backed options, which led me to Bellroy. I’m a huge admirer of Bellroy’s bags and accessories, and after taking the Transit Travel Pack Pro on a recent trip to London, I can vouch for its capability in carrying a substantial amount of tech.

Therefore, when I discovered that the brand produces Pixel 10 leather cases, I was instantly intrigued. I picked the Sienna color for my Pixel 10 Pro XL and the Pixel 10 in Sapphire. Both hues are attractive, but the Sienna catches the eye just a bit more. Bellroy collaborates with Google, so besides purchasing the case directly from the brand’s site — [priced at $59](https://bellroy.com/products/leather-pixel-case?color=sienna&material=leather&size=pixel10proxl) — you can also acquire it [through the Google Store](https://store.google.com/us/product/bellroy_leather_case_magnet_pixel_10_pro).

The case features a sleek design that highlights the camera bar of the Pixel 10 Pro XL. Apart from the Bellroy logo at the bottom, there’s no other branding on the case, and the quality of construction is superb. The leather feels pleasant in hand, and what’s even better is that it is significantly slimmer than most leather cases I’ve used previously, so it doesn’t add excessive bulk to the phone.

Weighing in at 30g, the leather case is lightweight as well. The interior of the case has a felt lining to prevent scratching the phone, and it features aluminum buttons that offer the same excellent tactility as the buttons on the Pixel 10 Pro XL. There’s ample clearance around the bottom cutout for the USB-C charging port, allowing me to use my cable with an integrated power meter without issues.

Additionally, the case includes built-in magnets. One of the standout features of the Pixel 10 is its Qi 2 integration; while a magnetic case isn’t a necessity, it certainly enhances usability. I experienced no issues using the case with the many Qi 2 charging pads scattered around my home.

The case has raised edges at the front to protect the screen from damage if the phone falls face-down, and you receive similar protection at the back around the camera area. I’ve been using the case for just a few days now without encountering any problems, but I will revise this post with notes from long-term use. Bellroy provides a three-year warranty for all its cases against manufacturing defects, so I don’t foresee that becoming a concern.

All in all, I genuinely appreciate what Bellroy has accomplished with its Pixel 10 cases. The construction quality is exceptional, the cases don’t add significant bulk or weight to the phones, and they are visually appealing. I also admire the quality of the leather, and if you’re considering Google’s latest devices and require a dependable leather case, I would suggest choosing Bellroy — this is among the

Delhi High Court Rejects Oura Lawsuit, Leading to Setback for Ultrahuman

Following the ITC, the Delhi High Court issued its decision regarding the patent conflict.

What you need to know

– The Delhi High Court in India has rendered its decision, rejecting the lawsuit Ultrahuman filed against Oura concerning its patent conflict.
– This marks the progression of the situation after the ITC’s ruling in August, which barred Ultrahuman’s devices and components from the U.S. marketplace.
– Initially, Ultrahuman pursued Oura for this legal action due to the latter’s features closely resembling its own.

Additional details have emerged about the ongoing litigation between Ultrahuman and Oura, but it appears this might be the conclusion—for now.

This afternoon (Sep 2), Oura reached out to Android Central concerning its ongoing litigation with Ultrahuman, as the latter took legal action against the former over “patent allegations.” Oura wanted to notify us that Ultrahuman’s lawsuit against them “has been dismissed” by the Delhi High Court in India.

Oura states, “Ultrahuman’s failure to disclose the US ITC’s initial and final rulings, which were significant to its complaint, was determined to be intentional and deliberate by the Delhi High Court.”

This brings us back to an update shared through an Oura statement regarding Ultrahuman’s case against it. The statement addressed the ITC’s decision against Ultrahuman, which prohibited the company’s smart rings and components “from the U.S. market through exclusion and cease-and-desist orders.” The ITC’s original ruling also indicated that Ultrahuman “violated” Oura’s intellectual property, according to the company’s statement.

The Smart Ring Rivalry

On August 22, news emerged that Ultrahuman had initiated a lawsuit against Oura, accusing the brand’s Ring 4 of “copying” its patented smart ring technology. The suit was filed in the Delhi High Court in India. Ultrahuman contended that its rival, Oura, was encroaching uncomfortably close with its smart ring features, such as “women’s health tracking, glucose monitoring, and unrestricted data features without authorization.”

At that time, an Ultrahuman spokesperson stated that the company had “no choice but to defend its innovation.” Besides the “sleep, recovery, and circadian health” insights mentioned, Ultrahuman highlighted another significant difference between both brands: the approach to paywalled versus non-paywalled content.

The lawsuit presented to the Delhi High Court was Ultrahuman’s attempt to “defend” a particular patent and maintain its position at the forefront of open health data. However, regarding Oura’s paywalled content, it argued that locking “them behind a paywall is anti-innovation and anti-consumer.”

US Magistrate Permits Google to Keep Chrome, Forbids ‘Exclusive Agreements’

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s latest decision in the antitrust litigation involving Google signifies a crucial shift, particularly regarding the changing influence of “general artificial intelligence” in the digital search arena. On September 2, Judge Mehta ruled that Google was not obligated to relinquish its Chrome or Android assets, a decision the Department of Justice (DOJ) had previously contemplated to boost competition in the online search realm. Rather, Google is now mandated to share its search data with rivals and is barred from entering exclusive agreements for its Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini offerings.

The ongoing case initially saw the DOJ advocating for Google to divest Chrome and Android to provide other search engines a fair opportunity to attract users. Nonetheless, Judge Mehta indicated that the plaintiffs had exceeded their bounds by requesting forced divestiture, as Google had not utilized these assets to enforce unlawful restrictions.

The legal context of this case has been altered with the advent of general artificial intelligence, impacting the landscape of online search. This evolution has led to a reassessment of tactics to tackle Google’s dominance in the market.

The proceedings of this case commenced in August 2024, when the DOJ explored multiple avenues to address the antitrust concerns, including compelling Google to divest Chrome and Android or increasing data sharing with competitors. By March 2025, the DOJ persisted in advocating for the divestiture of Chrome, convinced it would allow other search engines to broaden their user demographics.

While stepping back from its demands for the sale of Google’s AI assets, the DOJ continues to concentrate on enforcing stricter regulatory measures. Judge Mehta’s judgment represents a middle ground, prioritizing data sharing over asset divestment, as the role of AI in search continues to advance.

Comparison of Characteristics and Battery Performance: Google Pixel Watch 4 vs. OnePlus Watch 3

The OnePlus Watch 3 is the leader in battery life among Wear OS devices, but is that sufficient to outshine Google?

Wear OS timepieces are making a comeback, and the competition is fierce. Google and Samsung dominate the scene, yet brands like OnePlus are also re-entering the Wear OS arena. This is excellent news for those in the market for a smartwatch — there’s never been a better moment to seek a new one. Two standout choices are the Google Pixel Watch 4 and the OnePlus Watch 3.

Both Google and OnePlus were initially slow to roll out their flagship smartwatches in various sizes, but now you can choose between the Pixel Watch 4 and OnePlus Watch 3 in both large and small options. Each offers unique features, with Google focusing on Fitbit integration and OnePlus emphasizing battery longevity. Let’s delve into how these two top Wear OS smartwatches stack up against each other to help you determine which suits your needs.

Google Pixel Watch 4 vs. OnePlus Watch 3: Design and display

The Google Pixel Watch 4 and the OnePlus Watch 3 are unique in their design aesthetics. Google’s smartwatch showcases a delicate and stylish look, somewhat akin to classic analog watches. Even the larger 45mm variant maintains its sophisticated charm, showcasing a domed glass and display that merge smoothly into the round aluminum body. In contrast, the OnePlus Watch 3 embraces a bolder design language that also draws inspiration from analog watches, but leans into a more robust presentation.

The smaller 43mm OnePlus Watch 3 is more understated in appearance, akin to the Pixel Watch 3 but lacks the domed glass feature. Conversely, the original OnePlus Watch 3 boasts a substantial 46.6mm size, appearing quite large on most wrists. It features a metallic bezel with dial indicators that safeguard the digital OLED screen. Additionally, both sizes come with two buttons that now rotate for software navigation.

As illustrated in the comparison below, both variants of the OnePlus Watch 3 are eye-catching and resilient, though the 43mm OnePlus Watch 3 is undoubtedly more discreet.

The Google Pixel Watch 4 is offered in 41mm and 45mm sizes, both of which are smaller than the corresponding sizes of the OnePlus Watch 3. It features an Actua 360 AMOLED LTPO display, with a domed screen that complements the cover glass this year. It achieves a peak brightness of 3,000 nits and a variable refresh rate between 1-60Hz. Consequently, the Pixel Watch 4 will appear brighter and more legible in outdoor settings.

The OnePlus Watch 3 also incorporates an LTPO AMOLED display, but this one has a resolution of 466×466 and a peak brightness of 2,200 nits. While it’s comparable to Google’s display, it isn’t as bright, which might be a concern during outdoor workouts in direct sunlight.

The OnePlus Watch 3 is decidedly sturdier, constructed with a stainless steel frame and sapphire-crystal glass. It also boasts IP68/5ATM dust and water resistance, similar to the Pixel Watch 4. While the Pixel Watch 4 is equipped with Corning Gorilla Glass 5 and an aluminum chassis, it doesn’t measure up to the durability of the OnePlus Watch 3 in this regard. The domed glass design might pose a risk in this respect, as it could be more susceptible to scratches or damage.

Google Pixel Watch 4 vs. OnePlus Watch 3: Hardware and specs

The Google Pixel Watch 4 arrives with a chip enhancement compared to the OnePlus Watch 3, although it may not be as significant as expected. OnePlus utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon W5 Gen 1 chip, which was once the premier smartwatch processor. Now, the Pixel Watch 4 features the Snapdragon W5 Gen 2. In terms of sheer performance, you shouldn’t anticipate one device performing significantly better or worse than the other.

The new chipset doesn’t introduce substantial performance improvements; rather, it emphasizes a reduced size, dual-band GPS functionality, and on-watch satellite connectivity. These enhancements are appealing features of the Pixel Watch 4, yet they do not boost processing power. Both the Pixel Watch 4 and the OnePlus Watch 3 are equipped with co-processors designed to execute specific tasks while conserving battery life.

Specifically, the OnePlus Watch 3 employs Wear OS 5 and an RTOS (a supplemental operating system) to extend its multi-day battery life. The Google Pixel Watch 4 offers superior software support, comes pre-installed with Wear OS 6, and implements Material 3 Expressive. Nevertheless, the dual-OS strategy of the OnePlus Watch 3 provides a significant edge in battery longevity.

The 46mm variant of the OnePlus Watch 3 delivers up to five days of battery life on a single charge in smartwatch mode. Meanwhile, the 45mm Pixel Watch 4 has a maximum battery life of

Amazon Provides an Unprecedented $400 Reduction on the Galaxy S25 Edge

What’s going on at this moment?