Reimagining the Apple Watch SE: Essential Upgrades Needed for 2025

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

$145 at Amazon

Requesting a Larger (Not Superior) Display

I typically use an Apple Watch Series 9, but prior to that, I wore a hand-me-down Apple Watch Series 4 that had a scratched face. Excluding the scratch, the display on the 40mm Apple Watch SE I evaluated feels identical to what I had on that 2018 model. Both watches feature the same size display, which feels small and cramped in comparison to the ample space on the 42mm Series 10. The newest model received a slight 2mm increase, making a more relevant comparison with the 40mm Series 9, which offers 150 sq mm more screen area due to its thinner bezels. Considering the increasing data our watches are expected to manage, a larger display would greatly enhance visibility.

The SE’s brightness and visual quality are decent, eliminating the need for the more advanced LTPO 3 technology found in newer models. It offers 1000 nits of brightness, which is more than sufficient, ensuring readability even in bright daylight. While it cannot dim to a single nit as some new models can—an issue in dark settings—utilizing sleep focus at night completely turns the display off.

After transitioning to the Series 9, the feature I was most excited about was the always-on display (AOD). My previous Series 4 required multiple wrist lifts for it to activate, which was frustrating when simply checking the time. However, during my review of the Galaxy Watch 7, I found myself disabling the AOD feature for most of the testing and didn’t miss it at all. As it turns out, if the watch responds promptly when I flick my wrist, AOD isn’t as essential. Therefore, if forgoing this function leads to reduced costs, I’d consider that an acceptable exchange. Checking the time on the SE is marginally better than my experience with my older model but could benefit from a more advanced processor.

Let’s Have a Faster (Not the Fastest) Chip

I understand that suggesting the processing speed of the Apple Watch SE is sluggish might come off as ungrateful compared to my childhood dream of having a Casio calculator watch. Unfortunately, next to current models, the SE feels behind. Launching apps, managing music, beginning workouts, and communicating with Siri are all slower than they ought to be. A budget model may not need the highest-grade Apple system-in-package (SiP), yet upgrading to the 2023 S9 chip would make it feel notably more responsive.

An upgraded processor would also permit the introduction of double-tap functionality, which was introduced with the Series 9. While not essential, I’m indifferent to this feature. It doesn’t feel as precise or well-integrated with the operating system compared to, say, Samsung’s approach on the Galaxy Watch. I must admit, it feels somewhat magical with my Series 9 to simply double pinch to initiate a suggested walking workout—especially while managing a lively puppy on a leash.

Additionally, the S9 chip enables on-device processing for Siri commands, meaning they don’t rely on a connected phone’s internet. For instance, if I’m out biking and want to log my activity, I can communicate with Siri even if I’ve left my phone behind. (True, the cellular-enabled SE can handle those requests independently, but the added cost and monthly fees for that option blur the concept of a budget watch.) Completing Siri requests is also more efficient when processed directly on the watch. When I ask Siri to set a quick two-minute timer for brewing green tea, the SE takes an unacceptably long time to respond.

For Pete’s Sake, Improve Charging Speed

My dad is named Pete, and if he owned an Apple Watch SE (instead of his Series 7), I’m confident he’d desire a reasonable charging time. Overall, the battery life on the SE is impressively good. A full day of tracking a run, a Fitness+ session, setting timers, continually checking the weather, logging medications, and walking the dog all leave enough battery to monitor my sleep. By morning, it typically needs a recharge. This mirrors my experience with the Apple Watch Series 9. However, the SE takes more than two hours to charge from about ten percent to one hundred. That’s excessively long to wait.

Retain Your Titanium and Sapphire Crystal

Budget models often utilize less costly materials, which is reasonable. The aluminum alloy used for non-premium watches strikes a favorable balance between weight and durability. The Ion-X glass covering the front may not be as robust as sapphire glass, but it’s more affordable. While I can’t speak for all budget-minded consumers, I, like many I know, tend to encase all pricey technology in screen protectors, cases, and various other protective measures as soon as it leaves the package. Therefore, if slightly less durable materials can lower the price, by all means, Apple should go ahead with that.

There are rumors suggesting that the next SE could be made of plastic and feature brighter colors for the bands, potentially targeting a younger audience. I’d be curious to see how durable the plastic is and whether it can withstand children’s rigors for a few years while remaining affordable.

It’s Acceptable if My Watch Isn’t a Medical Facility

Fitness monitoring is essential for me, and ensuring accuracy requires a set of sensors—including a gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, altimeter, and an optical heart rate sensor. The SE includes all of these, and the data collected from my activities and runs matched what my newer watch gathered.

However, the SE does not feature an electrical heart rate sensor, which precludes it from taking ECG readings. It also lacks a temperature sensor, which the Series 10 utilizes to help forecast ovulation and menstrual cycles. Should your company resolve the patent issues related to its blood oxygen sensor, I suspect the upcoming Apple Watch SE would lack that feature, as well.

I’m okay with that. I’ve used the ECG feature a single time—for a comparison in another smartwatch review. I was hyper-focused on my ovulation cycle for six months, roughly eight years before my now-seven-year-old child was born. While it’s impressive that our smartwatches can compile various data, I believe it’s crucial to cover the basics: alert me when I’m pushing hard during a run and tracking when my heart rate hits 170 during high-intensity workouts. We can turn elsewhere for the more specialized health assessments.

It’s also acceptable that the SE doesn’t feature a depth gauge or a water temperature sensor. Most buyers seeking budget wearables won’t be concerned about their watch being equipped for diving.

Newer flagship Apple Watches come with an ultra-wideband (UWB) chip for more accurate locating of lost iPhones and improved interactions with nearby HomePods. I use my watch to locate my phone about three times a day. UWB offers a more precise locating method, with an interface appearing on my Series 9 that provides a fun hot-and-cold game directing me to my phone’s location. However, I typically disregard the directional arrows and just listen for the phone’s ringer. Thus, the absence of UWB in the SE didn’t bother me at all.

Conclusion

When the Apple Watch SE was released in 2022, Engadget’s Cherlynn Low declared it the best smartwatch for $250. At that moment, this was undoubtedly accurate. Yet, two and a half years later, it’s fair to expect more from an affordable timepiece. I recall my post-college years when $250 exceeded my entire monthly grocery budget. Even for many, an «affordable» Apple investment remains substantial.

For the same price, consumers can find far better options outside of your ecosystem. Samsung’s Galaxy Watch FE retails for $200. It not only includes all the same sensors as Samsung’s flagship watch but can also perform an ECG. For $200, you can also purchase a Fitbit Versa 4. Admittedly, it may not have as many features as the Pixel Watch 3, but it does well with the essentials—tracking activities, sending notifications, and lasting for up to six days on a charge. It’s even capable of pairing with an iPhone. Then there’s the Garmin Forerunner 165, currently regarded as our editors’ favorite running watch, available for $250. Creating a solid $250 smartwatch is surely achievable.

Apple, you can reserve your premium materials, specialized sensors, and non-essential features like UWB connections for your top-of-the-line and premium products. This way, consumers willing to pay more will still feel justified in their investment. Concentrate on the features that genuinely impact daily users, and omit the unnecessary add-ons. There’s still an opportunity for you to produce a reasonably priced watch that doesn’t feel like an inferior accessory.