The Apple Watch SE in 2025: A Call for Essential Upgrades to Compete in a Crowded Market

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

$153 at Amazon

Provide a larger (not improved) display

I generally wear an Apple Watch Series 9, but prior to that, I had an older Apple Watch Series 4 with a scratched screen. Aside from the imperfections, the screen on the 40mm Apple Watch SE I assessed feels just like the one from that 2018 model. Actually, both have identical display sizes, which comes off as constrained and small when compared to the generous area on the 42mm Series 10. Naturally, the latest Apple Watch has received a 2mm increase in size, making a more fitting comparison with the 40mm 9th-gen model that offers 150 sq mm more surface area due to slimmer bezels. Given the increasing volume of information our watches process, I’d appreciate a larger screen to accommodate it.

The brightness and clarity of the SE’s OLED Retina display are fully satisfactory. The advanced LTPO 3 technology seen in newer models isn’t necessary here. Furthermore, the SE’s brightness of 1000 nits is adequate; even under bright sunlight, the display remains readable. While it doesn’t have the capability to reduce brightness down to a single nit like newer variants, utilizing sleep focus at night effectively turns off the screen entirely, which resolves distractions in dark settings.

Upon upgrading to the Series 9, the feature I most eagerly anticipated was the always-on display (AOD). This is because my Series 4 required me to lift my wrist repeatedly before the screen would light up. It was frustrating to simply check the time. However, during my review of the Galaxy Watch 7, I disabled the AOD for the majority of the testing and didn’t find it to be a drawback. It turns out that if the watch promptly responds when I flick my wrist, the AOD isn’t as essential. Thus, if omitting that feature helps reduce costs, I’d find that tradeoff acceptable. Currently, checking the time on the SE is slightly, but not significantly, improved compared to my experience with the older model, which could be mitigated with a more capable processor.

Prioritize a quicker (not the quickest) chip

I realize that by suggesting the Apple Watch SE’s performance feels sluggish, I may be dismissing my 14-year-old self who once dreamed of owning a Casio calculator watch. Despite that, the SE feels slow compared to more contemporary models. Launching apps, managing music, initiating workouts, and interacting with Siri is all notably slower. A budget watch doesn’t need top-of-the-line Apple technology, but upgrading to the S9 chip from 2023 would significantly enhance the watch’s responsiveness.

An enhanced processor could also facilitate the double-tap feature, which debuted with the Series 9. However, this isn’t a necessity — I could do without the gesture control capability. It doesn’t feel as precise or as seamless with the operating system as Samsung’s implementation on the Galaxy Watch. That said, I must admit, utilizing my Series 9 to double pinch and start a suggested walking workout does feel a bit enchanting — especially when I’m wrangling a bouncy puppy.

The S9 chip also allows on-device processing for Siri, meaning those inquiries don’t depend on a connected phone for internet access. For example, if I’m on a bike ride and want to log that activity, I can simply ask Siri, even if my phone is at home. (Granted, the cellular option for the SE can perform those tasks without a phone, but the added cost and recurring monthly fees can blur the definition of a budget watch.) Siri requests are also resolved much faster when processed by the watch itself. When I want Siri to quickly set a two-minute timer for brewing green tea, the delay with the SE is frustratingly lengthy.

For Pete’s sake, improve charging speed

My father’s name is Pete, and if he had an Apple Watch SE (instead of his Series 7), I know he would appreciate a quicker charging time. Overall, the SE’s battery life is surprisingly commendable. I can complete a full day that includes tracking a run, a Fitness+ session, setting timers, repeatedly checking the weather, logging medications, and a couple of dog walks — all while having enough power left to monitor my sleep. By morning, it’s generally time to attach the watch to the charger. This mirrors my experience with the Apple Watch Series 9. However, instead of recharging while I shower and prepare for the day, the SE takes over two hours to go from roughly ten percent to full charge, which is simply too long to wait.

Retain your titanium and sapphire crystal

Budget models are often constructed from less expensive materials, and that’s acceptable. The aluminum alloy used in Apple’s non-premium watches provides a commendable balance of lightness and durability. The Ion-X glass used on the front isn’t as strong as sapphire glass, but it is more cost-effective. I can’t speak for everyone on a budget, but I and every other financially-savvy person I know typically cover our costly tech with screen protectors, cases, and various protective measures right from the start. Therefore, if opting for slightly less durable materials can help reduce costs, I’d encourage Apple to proceed with that approach.

There are rumors that the next SE could be encased in a plastic body with vibrant colors for the watch bands, possibly to attract a younger audience. I’d need to evaluate how durable the plastic is and if it can withstand the inevitabilities of children, but if it holds up for a few years while keeping the price manageable, I’m willing to consider the idea.

It’s acceptable if my watch isn’t a medical facility

Fitness tracking is a priority for me and for that, a variety of sensors — including a gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, altimeter, and an optical heart rate reader — are crucial. The SE has all of these, and the data from my workouts and runs matched those from my newer watch.

The SE doesn’t have an electrical heart sensor, preventing it from taking an ECG reading. Additionally, it lacks a temperature sensor, utilized in the Series 10 to assist with ovulation predictions and menstrual cycle tracking. Should your company resolve the patent dispute regarding the blood oxygen sensor, I suspect a new Apple Watch SE wouldn’t have that feature either.

That’s perfectly fine. I’ve only utilized the ECG function once — just to test it out while reviewing another smartwatch. I was obsessively focused on my ovulation cycle for around six months, nearly eight years before having my now seven-year-old child. While it’s fascinating that our watches can capture so much data, I believe it’s more vital to cover the fundamentals: let me know when I’m pushing hard during a run and when my heart rate spikes to 170 during a HIIT workout. We can find those more specialized health insights elsewhere.

The SE also lacks a depth gauge or a water temperature sensor, which is acceptable. I doubt that anyone seeking a budget wearable would expect it to support scuba diving.

More recent flagship Apple Watches incorporate an ultra-wideband (UWB) chip for improved location tracking of misplaced iPhones and enable interactions with nearby HomePods. I frequently use my watch to locate my phone multiple times daily. UWB allows for precise tracking, and that interface appears on my Series 9 every time I ping my phone, offering a playful little hot-and-cold game, directing an arrow towards my lost device. However, I often ignore the guidance and simply wait to hear the phone’s ringtone. This indicates that I didn’t miss the absence of UWB on the SE whatsoever.

Conclusion

When the Apple Watch SE launched in 2022, Engadget’s Cherlynn Low hailed it as the best smartwatch for $250. That was undoubtedly true at the time. However, as we approach 2025, it’s reasonable to expect more from an economical timepiece. I recall the years post-college when $250 was more than my entire monthly food budget. For many, even an «affordable» Apple device can still require a considerable investment.

With the same amount, consumers can obtain significantly more by venturing outside your ecosystem. Samsung’s Galaxy Watch FE retails for just $200. It not only incorporates the same sensor technology as the company’s flagship model but also provides ECG capabilities. For $200, a consumer could choose a Fitbit Versa 4 instead. While it may lack the robust feature set of the Pixel Watch 3, it excels at the essentials: activity tracking, notifications, and boasts a battery life extending up to six days. It even pairs seamlessly with an iPhone. Additionally, the Garmin Forerunner 165 is currently our editors’ preferred timepiece for running, retailing at $250. Creating a quality smartwatch at this price point is certainly feasible.

Apple, keep your premium materials, specialized sensors, and nice-to-have features like UWB for your flagship and premium lines. This way, those willing to pay extra will continue to feel justified in their purchase. Instead, concentrate on aspects that enhance everyday use for users and eliminate unnecessary frills. There remains ample opportunity for you to produce a competitively priced smartwatch that feels far from inferior.