Apple Watch SE 2025: A Call for Essential Upgrades to Compete in the Budget Smartwatch Market

Apple Watch SE (2nd Gen, GPS, 40mm)

$169 at Amazon

Requesting a larger (not enhanced) display

I typically wear an Apple Watch Series 9, but prior to that, I had a used Apple Watch Series 4 with a scratched display. Besides the blemish, the screen on the 40mm Apple Watch SE I reviewed feels just like the one on that device from 2018. In reality, both feature the same display dimensions, which seem cramped and small compared to the expansive screen on the 42mm Series 10. The latest Apple Watch did receive a 2mm upgrade in size, so a more accurate comparison would be to the 40mm 9th generation watch, which boasts 150 sq mm more screen area, due to its slimmer bezels. Given the increasing volume of information our watches process, I would appreciate a larger screen to accommodate this content.

The brightness and general quality of the SE’s OLED Retina display are quite adequate. There’s no necessity for the more advanced LTPO 3 technology that the latest models possess. Moreover, the SE’s 1000 nits of brightness suffices; the screen remains readable even in direct sunlight. While it can’t reduce to a single nit of brightness like the newer watches, the sleep focus feature at nighttime does completely turn off the display.

Upon upgrading to the Series 9, the feature I eagerly anticipated was the always-on display (AOD). This is due to my Series 4 needing multiple wrist lifts before finally lighting up. Checking the time became a nuisance. However, during my review of the Galaxy Watch 7, I disabled the AOD for most of the testing phase and found I didn’t miss it at all. It turns out that if the watch responds swiftly and reliably to a flick of my wrist, the AOD becomes less significant. Thus, if sacrificing that feature helps reduce costs, I find it a reasonable compromise. Currently, checking the time on the SE is marginally, yet not profoundly better than my experience with the older model. This could be enhanced with a newer processor.

Desiring a quicker (not the quickest) chip

I acknowledge that implying the processing capability of the Apple Watch SE is unresponsive might insult my younger self who longed for a Casio calculator watch. Nevertheless, the SE lags compared to my experiences with the latest models. Launching apps, managing music, initiating workouts, and interacting with Siri all take longer than they should. A basic smartwatch doesn’t need to incorporate Apple’s most advanced SiP, but upgrading to the S9 chip from 2023 would lend the watch a satisfying speed.

An upgraded processor would also facilitate the double-tap functionality, which debuted with the Series 9. Still, this isn’t crucial — I can take or leave the gesture control. It doesn’t seem as precise or well-integrated into the operating system as, for example, Samsung’s version on the Galaxy Watch. However, I must admit, using my Series 9 does feel quite special when I can double pinch to kick off a suggested walking workout — particularly when I’m wrangling my hyperactive puppy.

The S9 chip also supports on-device processing for Siri commands, meaning the watch can handle requests without relying on the internet connection of a paired phone. If I’m riding my bike and wish to log my ride, I can simply ask Siri, even if I left my phone at home. (It’s true that the cellular variant of the SE can perform these tasks independently, but the higher price and ongoing service costs complicate the concept of a budget smartwatch.) Moreover, Siri’s response time is drastically improved when requests are processed directly on the watch. When I want Siri to quickly set a two-minute timer for brewing green tea, the SE’s process simply takes too long.

For Pete’s sake, speed up the charging

My father’s name is Pete. If he were to own an Apple Watch SE (instead of his Series 7), he would surely desire it to recharge in a timely manner. Overall, the battery life on the SE is impressively good. I can navigate an entire day filled with tracking a run, completing a Fitness+ class, setting timers, frequently checking the weather, logging medications, and taking several dog walks — all while having enough battery to monitor my sleep. By the time I wake up, it’s typically time to connect the watch to its charger. This experience mirrors my Apple Watch Series 9. However, while I can refill the Series 9 battery while I shower and prepare for my day, the SE requires over two hours to charge from approximately ten percent to full. That’s excessive.

Retain your titanium and sapphire crystal

Budget devices often receive less costly materials, and that’s acceptable. The aluminum alloy used in your non-premium watches offers a solid blend of strength and lightness. The Ion-X glass covering isn’t as durable as sapphire, but it is more affordable. I don’t intend to speak for all budget-minded consumers, but I and every frugal individual I know tend to envelop all high-end technology in screen protectors, cases, and various other defenses as soon as they exit the packaging. So, if using slightly less resilient materials helps reduce the price, please proceed, Apple.

Rumors exist suggesting your next SE may be crafted from a plastic casing with vibrant colors for the bands, potentially aimed at younger users. I’d have to examine the type of plastic you believe would be sturdy enough to withstand youthful chaos, but if it can endure years without failing while also lowering costs, I’m open to the prospect.

It’s alright if my watch isn’t a clinical tool

Fitness tracking is a vital feature for me. And achieving accuracy demands a comprehensive set of sensors — a gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, altimeter, and an optical heart rate sensor. The SE is equipped with all these, and the data gathered from my tracked workouts and runs compares favorably with what my newer watch provides.

However, the SE lacks an electrical heart rate sensor, meaning it can’t conduct ECG readings. There is no temperature sensor either, which the Series 10 employs to help predict ovulation and menstrual cycles. If and when your company resolves the patent dispute regarding the blood oxygen sensor, I suspect a new Apple Watch SE won’t offer that capability either.

That’s perfectly fine. I used the ECG function only once — to compare it with another smartwatch during a review. I obsessively tracked my ovulation cycle for around six months, about eight years prior to welcoming my now seven-year-old child. Although it’s impressive that our devices can gather so much data, I believe it’s more important to cover the essentials: inform me when I’m pushing hard during a run and when my heart rate soars to 170 in a HIIT workout. More specialized health metrics can be sought out elsewhere.

The SE also doesn’t include a depth gauge or water temperature sensor. That’s fine. I doubt anyone interested in a budget wearable would be upset over its inadequacy for scuba diving.

Recent flagship Apple Watches are equipped with an ultra-wideband (UWB) chip for enhanced pinpointing of lost iPhones and support additional interactions with a nearby HomePod. I utilize my watch to locate my phone several times a day. The UWB provides a more precise means to find devices, and that interface appears on my Series 9 every time I ping my phone, laying out a fun hot-and-cold game, directing me towards my missing handset. However, I generally disregard the signals and instead rely on the sounds of the phone’s ringtone. Thus, I’ve found the SE’s lack of UWB unbothersome.

Conclusion

When the Apple Watch SE was introduced in 2022, Engadget’s Cherlynn Low declared it the best smartwatch available for $250. This was undoubtedly true at that time. However, two and a half years later, it is only logical to expect more from your budget smartwatch. I recall the many years post-college when $250 represented more than my entire monthly grocery budget. For numerous individuals, even an “affordable” Apple device remains a major investment.

For the same price, consumers can secure much more by venturing beyond your confined ecosystem. Samsung’s Galaxy Watch FE runs for only $200. It features the same sensors as the company’s top-tier model and can conduct an ECG as well. Alternatively, a person could opt for the Fitbit Versa 4 for $200. While it might not have as many functions as the Pixel Watch 3, it adequately addresses the basics, monitoring activities, sending notifications, and lasting up to six days on a single charge. It also pairs seamlessly with an iPhone. Additionally, there’s the Garmin Forerunner 165, currently our editors’ top choice for running watches, also priced at $250. Crafting a high-quality smartwatch for $250 is entirely feasible.

Apple, you can reserve your premium materials, highly specialized sensors, and non-essential features like UWB interactions for your flagship and high-end models. This way, those willing to invest more will feel that they are truly getting their money’s worth. Concentrate on the functionalities that matter most to average users and set aside those unnecessary bonuses. There’s still a chance for you to develop a competitively priced watch that doesn’t come off as a subpar accessory.