In an industry where tech giants seem determined to lock us out of our own devices, Google just pulled off a stunning reversal that could change everything we expect from our wearables.
The sad reality of modern electronics is that the more compact a device becomes, the more challenging it is to repair. Consider Apple's AirPods Pro 3, which appear nearly impossible to open without permanently damaging their delicate internal components. Smartwatches typically follow this same frustrating pattern — but Google has dramatically broken from tradition with its Pixel Watch 4, completely reimagining what's possible in wearable device repairability.
But here's where it gets controversial: iFixit, the industry authority on repairability, recently conducted a comprehensive teardown of the Pixel Watch 4 and awarded it an unprecedented 9/10 score — a rating no smartwatch has ever achieved before. The repair specialists described Google's approach as "a complete rethink of smartwatch design," clearly indicating the company intentionally engineered this device with serviceability as a core principle.
The revolutionary breakthrough lies in Google's complete elimination of adhesive in this year's design. Instead of relying on stubborn glue that typically requires heat guns and specialized tools, the Pixel Watch 4 utilizes simple screws to secure its components. This fundamental shift means opening the device becomes remarkably straightforward — all you need is a standard screwdriver.
And this is the part most people miss: Google didn't sacrifice durability for repairability. The two exterior screws feature their own O-rings to maintain the Pixel Watch 4's IP68 water and dust resistance rating. Inside, additional gaskets protect the screen and chipset, with iFixit comparing this protective approach to the robust design of professional dive watches. They also highlighted how the watch's circular form factor actually simplifies this sealed design compared to rectangular alternatives.
Now, let's address the elephant in the room: Why does this matter when most people never open their devices? The answer reveals an uncomfortable truth about the electronics industry. When manufacturers make devices difficult to repair, they essentially force consumers into expensive replacements or manufacturer-only service options. Google's approach empowers both professional technicians and potentially even device owners to perform repairs themselves — once official parts become available.
Let's be brutally honest here: Other smartwatches have been terrible when it comes to repairability. The Pixel Watch 2 received a mediocre 4/10 score from iFixit due to custom adhesives that prevented reliable reassembly. The Pixel Watch 3 was apparently so problematic to fix that Google openly stated it would replace broken units rather than repair them — an incredibly wasteful practice that should concern any environmentally conscious consumer.
Apple's approach is even more restrictive. The Apple Watch Series 10 earned a dismal 3/10 repairability score, plagued by the same issues that affect other Apple compact devices: difficult-to-access components, unavailable official parts, and heavy reliance on adhesive that complicates any repair attempt.
Samsung's Galaxy Watch Ultra came closest to Google's achievement with a respectable 7/10 score, also eliminating internal glue and using gaskets to preserve seals. However, Samsung complicated matters with proprietary tri-point screws on the exterior, creating unnecessary barriers for would-be repairers.
Here's the provocative question we need to ask: Are companies like Apple intentionally designing devices to be unrepairable to maintain control over the repair ecosystem and drive replacement sales? Google's demonstration that robust, waterproof smartwatches can be highly repairable suggests the technological barriers aren't the real issue — it's about corporate priorities.
Google has proven that smartwatch repairs could be significantly more accessible than they've been, provided manufacturers prioritize making them that way. The question now is whether other tech giants will follow this consumer-friendly approach or continue with their restrictive practices.
What's your take on this repairability revolution? Do you believe companies have a responsibility to make devices easier to fix, or is planned obsolescence just the cost of technological progress? Share your perspective in the comments — I'm genuinely curious where our readers stand on this increasingly important issue.
