Dear Apple,

As you are undoubtedly aware, the Apple Watch SE is no longer a fresh release. The second generation debuted in September 2022, alongside the Series 8 and the initial version of the Ultra. Since then, you’ve rolled out updates for the iPhone, various iPad models, AirPods, MacBooks, and both your flagship and premium smartwatches, yet the budget smartwatch remains unchanged. Last month, my editors tasked me with evaluating how the Watch SE holds up in 2025, and I eagerly accepted the challenge. I enjoy exploring new technology, assessing its capabilities, and experiencing its features (before returning it, of course, to avoid clutter). However, this particular review left me feeling underwhelmed. The Apple Watch SE appears bland and distinctly inferior in 2025.

It’s a reasonable assumption that a new version of the SE will be unveiled soon, especially given the buzz surrounding the upcoming models. Additionally, the launch of the iPhone 16e indicates your ongoing interest in producing more affordable devices. There’s a notable price gap of about $150 between the SE and the base Apple Watch Series 10, which retails for $399 at full price but can be found for as low as $329 during sales. The SE is priced at $249 and has been available for as little as $149. While I understand that a budget smartwatch may not encompass all the features of a flagship model, certain features have become essential in 2025, along with reasonable compromises that most cost-conscious consumers would likely accept. As a daily smartwatch user and a consumer technology reviewer, I’m providing you with my unsolicited yet sincere advice on the enhancements I would love to see in the next iteration of the Apple Watch SE.

Enhance the Display Size Without Compromising Quality

My usual choice is the Apple Watch Series 9, but prior to that, I wore a second-hand Apple Watch Series 4 that had a scratched screen. Aside from the visible damage, the display on the 40mm Apple Watch SE I evaluated feels just like the one on the 2018 model. In fact, both models feature identical display dimensions, which seem cramped and small when compared to the spacious screen on the 42mm Series 10. It’s worth noting that the latest Apple Watch received a 2mm increase in size, making a more direct comparison relevant to the 40mm 9th-generation watch, which offers 150 square millimeters more space due to thinner bezels. Given the increasing volume of information our smartwatches manage, I firmly believe a larger display would significantly enhance user experience.

The brightness and overall clarity of the SE’s OLED Retina display are quite satisfactory. There’s no pressing need for the advanced LTPO 3 technology found in the latest models. Additionally, the SE boasts a brightness level of 1000 nits, which is more than adequate, ensuring that the screen remains readable even under bright sunlight. While it may lack the capability to dim down to a single nit like the newer models, which can be distracting in low-light environments, activating sleep focus at bedtime effectively turns the screen off completely, which is a practical solution.

When I made the switch to the Series 9, the feature I was most excited about was the always-on display (AOD). This was particularly appealing because my Series 4 required me to repeatedly lift my wrist for the display to activate. It was quite frustrating just to check the time. However, during my review of the Galaxy Watch 7, I found myself turning off the AOD for much of the testing phase and didn’t feel its absence at all. It turns out that as long as the watch responds reliably and swiftly when I flick my wrist, the AOD isn’t as essential as I once believed. Therefore, if forgoing this feature can help reduce costs, that would be an acceptable trade-off. Currently, checking the time on the SE is slightly improved, but not significantly, compared to my older model, which could be enhanced with a more advanced processor.

Upgrade to a Quicker, Yet Cost-Effective Chip

I acknowledge that stating the processing speed of the Apple Watch SE feels sluggish might offend my 14-year-old self, who fantasized about owning a Casio calculator watch. Nonetheless, in comparison to my experiences with newer models, the SE does seem to lag behind. Opening applications, managing music playback, initiating workouts, and conversing with Siri all take longer than expected. A budget smartwatch doesn’t have to feature the pinnacle of Apple’s system-in-package (SiP), but upgrading to the 2023 S9 chip would greatly enhance the watch’s responsiveness and overall user satisfaction.

An upgrade in processing power could also facilitate the inclusion of the double tap feature, which premiered with the Series 9. However, this isn’t a deal-breaker for me—I could either take it or leave it. The gesture control feature doesn’t feel as precise or as seamlessly integrated into the operating system as its counterpart on Samsung’s Galaxy Watch. That said, I must admit that using the Series 9, it feels somewhat magical to double pinch to initiate a suggested walking workout, especially when juggling the leash of a hyperactive puppy.

The S9 chip also allows for on-device processing of Siri requests, meaning they don’t need to rely on a connected phone’s internet. This feature is particularly useful when I’m out for a bike ride and want to log my activity without my phone. (Admittedly, the cellular-enabled SE can still handle those requests sans phone, but the extra cost and ongoing service fee complicate the concept of a budget smartwatch.) Furthermore, Siri requests are completed significantly faster when processed directly on the watch. When I need Siri to quickly set a two-minute timer for steeping green tea, the process with the SE can feel excessively slow.

Implement Faster Charging Capabilities

My dad’s name is Pete, and I can confidently say that if he owned an Apple Watch SE (rather than his Series 7), he would expect it to recharge in a reasonable timeframe. Overall, the battery performance of the SE is surprisingly robust. I can manage a full day that includes tracking a run, completing a Fitness+ workout, setting timers, frequently checking the weather, logging medication, and taking a few dog walks, all while still having enough battery life left to monitor my sleep. By the time I wake up, it’s typically time to place the watch on the charger. This experience is akin to what I have with my Apple Watch Series 9. However, instead of quickly recharging while I shower and prepare for the day, the SE takes over two hours to charge from around ten percent to a full battery. This duration is simply too long to endure.

Utilize Affordable Yet Durable Materials

Budget models often receive lower-cost materials, and that is generally acceptable. The aluminum alloy used in Apple’s non-premium watches strikes an effective balance between durability and lightweight design. While the Ion-X glass on the front is not as robust as sapphire glass, it is more economical. I cannot speak for all budget-conscious consumers, but I, along with countless frugal individuals I know, tend to protect expensive technology with screen protectors, cases, and various other safeguarding measures the moment they unbox it. Therefore, if using slightly less durable materials can drive down the price, I wholeheartedly support that approach, Apple.

We’ve seen speculation suggesting that your upcoming SE could be encased in plastic with more vibrant colors for the watch bands, potentially to attract a younger demographic. While I’d need to assess the type of plastic you intend to use and its ability to withstand the chaos of children, I remain open to the concept, provided it can endure a few years of wear and tear while also maintaining affordability.

Embrace Simplicity Over Excess in Health Features

Fitness tracking is a top priority for me when it comes to essential features. Achieving accuracy in this area necessitates a comprehensive suite of sensors, including a gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS, altimeter, and an optical heart rate reader. The SE is equipped with all of these vital sensors, and the data collected from my workouts and runs align closely with the information gathered by my newer watch.

However, the SE lacks an electrical heart rate sensor, preventing it from conducting an ECG reading. It also lacks a temperature sensor, which the Series 10 utilizes to help forecast ovulation and menstrual cycles. Should your company eventually resolve the patent dispute regarding the blood oxygen sensor, I imagine a new Apple Watch SE won’t feature that capability either.

That’s perfectly acceptable to me. I used the ECG feature exactly once—merely to compare it with another smartwatch during a review. I was obsessively tracking my ovulation cycle for a brief period, roughly eight years ago, prior to the birth of my now seven-year-old child. While it is impressive that our watches can gather so much data, I prioritize fundamental features: I want to know when I’m pushing hard during a run and when my heart rate hits 170 during a HIIT workout. We can access those specialized health assessments through other means.

The SE also lacks a depth gauge and a water temperature sensor, which is also acceptable. I doubt that anyone in the market for a budget wearable would be overly concerned that it isn’t built for scuba diving adventures.

Newer flagship Apple Watches come equipped with an ultra wideband (UWB) chip, enabling more precise tracking of a misplaced iPhone and facilitating additional interactions with nearby HomePods. I rely on my watch to help locate my phone several times a day. The UWB technology allows for more accurate device tracking, with an interface appearing on my Series 9 each time I ping my phone, creating a fun game of hot and cold, directing me toward my lost device. However, I generally ignore the directions and simply listen for the distinctive ringtone of my phone. In other words, I found the absence of UWB on the SE to be inconsequential.

Elevate the Apple Watch SE to Meet Modern Expectations

When the Apple Watch SE was launched in 2022, Engadget’s Cherlynn Low referred to it as the best smartwatch you could purchase for $250. That claim certainly held true at the time. However, two and a half years later, it’s entirely reasonable to anticipate more from your budget timepiece. I recall the decade following college when $250 represented a significant portion of my monthly food budget. For many individuals, even an “affordable” purchase from Apple remains a considerable financial commitment.

For the same investment, consumers can acquire much more by venturing outside your ecosystem. For instance, the Samsung Galaxy Watch FE is available for just $200 and includes the same sensors as the company’s flagship wearable, along with the capability to perform an ECG. Alternatively, one could purchase a Fitbit Versa 4 for $200. While it doesn’t offer nearly as many features as the Pixel Watch 3, it effectively covers the basics, tracking activities, delivering notifications, and lasting up to six days on a single charge. It’s even compatible with iPhones. Furthermore, the Garmin Forerunner 165 is currently our editors’ top pick for running watches and is available for $250. Crafting a quality smartwatch within a $250 budget is certainly achievable.

Apple, feel free to reserve your premium materials, specialized sensors, and desirable extras like UWB connections for your flagship and premium models. This way, consumers willing to spend more will still perceive value in their investment. Instead, concentrate on features that genuinely enhance the everyday user experience, and set aside the non-essential perks. There remains ample opportunity for you to develop a competitively priced smartwatch that doesn’t come across as an inferior accessory.