I just want Samsung to unlock their Galaxy Watch line

Wearables have come a long way since they were just counting steps. Today, they’re feature-packed wellness companions that follow us through everything from sweaty workouts to abbreviated REM cycles. For many buyers, the idea of ​​a daily health center is the goal. This is also exactly why Samsung’s approach seems increasingly counterproductive. We are now in 2026 and some of the brand owners smart watch The features still depend on the phone you are using.

The Galaxy Watch line includes some of the most capable health wearables you can buy. However, even though the range has gotten better and better in recent years (largely thanks to Wear OS), the fine print hasn’t changed much. All of the biggest limitations relate to Samsung Health Monitor, which remains exclusive to Galaxy phones. That includes blood pressure tracking, ECG readings, irregular heart rhythm notifications, and sleep apnea detection. Simply put, if you run it through Samsung Health Monitor, it doesn’t completely work without a Galaxy phone. I can strap Samsung hardware to my wrist, but access to its best tools depends on my loyalty to the ecosystem.

That’s not to say the brand’s watches are locked without a Galaxy phone. Most of the basics remain widely accessible, including heart rate monitoring, SpO2 tracking, core sleep trackingactivity and training metrics, and body composition measurements. All of these health and fitness tracking tools work on Android phones through standard Samsung Health and Wear OS support. It’s just disappointing that Samsung’s most clinically significant features are the ones behind the wall.

Wear OS is no longer the fragmented platform it once was, and the expectation now is that your experience follows your hardware, not the logo on your phone. Google’s Pixel Watch line, for example, keeps its core health features widely accessible on Android devices, not just Pixel phones. Sure, regional limits come with the territory for advanced health tools, but that’s a separate issue (and Samsung addresses that too). As the Wear OS siblings move away from brand-based restrictions, Samsung’s restrictions feel increasingly out of step.

Even outside of Wear OS, the contrast is hard to ignore. Garmin offers a platform-agnostic experience, while smart rings from companies like Oura and Ultrahuman pair with virtually any modern smartphone. In that context, Samsung’s phone-based access control seems outdated and, at this point, a bit stubborn. I don’t expect my Wear OS watches to pair with iOS anytime soon, and I’m not complaining about my Apple Watch only working with an iPhone, but I do resent losing key features just by pairing a Galaxy Watch Ultra with a Pixel 10 instead of a Galaxy S26.

Looking ahead, there haven’t been many significant leaks so far regarding the upcoming Galaxy Watch 9. What has emerged points to a fairly typical update, including a familiar size, similar battery expectations, and likely a new chip, with the usual round of AI-powered software and health tweaks layered on top. So far, there’s nothing making me clamor to attend the brand’s summer Unpacked event, where the line will likely drop.

Samsung will more than likely tout improvements in accuracy and other improvements to health features. In reality, if Samsung wants the Galaxy Watch to continue leading as a health-focused wearable, it should expand access to the features it already has. Decoupling tools like ECG, blood pressure tracking, and sleep apnea detection from Samsung phones would go much further than another incremental increase in specifications. The Galaxy Watch doesn’t need more features, it just needs fewer restrictions.