It has a new double-tap feature and brighter screen, but latest model has same battery life the watches have had since 2015: 18 hours
4 min
If you asked me, “Should I upgrade my Apple Watch to the Series 9 this year?” I’d probably say no.
It’s a fine watch. It’s just not much better than the Series 8, which you can get cheaper, even refurbished right from Apple.
I have been testing the $399-and-up Series 9 for nearly a week. Available on Sept. 22, it includes a few upgrades, including a one-handed, double-tap gesture and a brighter screen. Apple says one version of it—the aluminium case with Sport Loop band—is carbon neutral.
Many things, though, remain unchanged from last year’s, including the health sensors and design. I’m most grumpy about the battery life. Back in 2015, Apple promised 18 hours. Today, Apple promises…18 hours. Eight years and a dozen models later, we still need to charge these watches daily.
The Apple Watch is the bestselling smartwatch in the world, but battery life is where competitors such as Garmin still have an edge. It’s what holds the Apple Watch back from true all-day/all-night/all-weekend usefulness.
The improvements to the Series 9 are internal, enabling new features that are nice-to-haves. There are no game-changers.
Double tap: The new watch senses when you pinch your thumb and index finger twice, in quick succession. The gesture triggers an action that varies depending on what you’re doing. If you’re playing a song, you can double-tap to pause or skip. For incoming texts, it starts a reply with voice dictation. For calls, it picks up the phone. For timers, it dismisses the alert.
Double tap will come in an update rolling out next month. It’s useful for one-handed operation, while you’re holding on to a subway pole or cup of coffee. It also works while you’re wearing gloves.
A similar accessibility feature called AssistiveTouch is available on Series 4 models and newer. You can even double-pinch to dismiss notifications. In my tests, AssistiveTouch wasn’t always as responsive as double-tapping on the Series 9, but if you already have an Apple Watch, it’s worth enabling.
Offline Siri: Apple’s voice assistant can now process some queries faster and more accurately, because it doesn’t need to send the request to the server over Wi-Fi or cellular. You can set timers—even multiple timers in the WatchOS 10—almost instantaneously.
Brighter screen: The display goes up to 2,000 nits, up from 1,000 nits last year. If you don’t speak nits, that translates to a screen that’s easier to see outdoors on a sunny day. Its dimmest setting is also lower, way down to one nit. The Apple Watch adjusts screen brightness automatically based on ambient light, so the brighter screen isn’t noticeable in most settings.
Precision iPhone finding: I use my Apple Watch’s Find My iPhone ping basically every day, so I thought I’d like precision finding. When you’re within about 30 feet of the iPhone, you can see its distance and direction—similar to an AirTag. It’s nice for those who might be unable to hear the audible ping triggered by older models, but that never failed me. And this trick only works with an iPhone 15 model.
In its quest to make the smartwatch a jack-of-all-trades wearable with a high-resolution, multitouch screen, Apple has sacrificed battery life. The new S9 processor is 25% more power efficient than last year’s model. But over the years, the company has added more sensors, brighter screens and other energy-sucking elements.
During the watch’s recent unveiling, Deidre Caldbeck, the director of Apple Watch product marketing, highlighted the company priority: “This powerful custom silicon is what allows us to maintain all-day 18-hour battery life while adding new features and systemwide improvements.”
Garmin wearables, meanwhile, have lower-resolution displays that can last days. Some models have solar panels embedded in their watch faces, and can last weeks. It’s something I’m painfully reminded of every time I forget my Apple Watch charger on a weekend trip. Cue the gloating by my Garmin-wearing husband, who never brings his charger.
Apple often touts the watch’s health-tracking capabilities in marketing materials. For this to work, though, it has to be on your wrist—even at night, while you sleep. That’s tough when it needs to be charged once a day.
Charging wouldn’t be as problematic if the Apple Watch didn’t need its own proprietary puck to power up. (Garmin’s new Vivomove Trend is one of the first to work with standard Qi wireless charging.)
I’m not saying Apple Watches are useless without default multi day battery life. I wear mine so often that I have a squircle-shaped tan on my wrist. But a battery-life quantum leap is needed.
That could be coming next year. The Apple Watch was announced 10 years ago next fall, and that anniversary could mean a big redesign. According to a Bloomberg report, a new band system could make room in the watch’s case for more sensors—or, I hope, a bigger battery—and a switch to a more energy-efficient microLED display could lead to power gains.
If you want the longest battery life right now, there’s the $799 Apple Watch Ultra. It lasts a day and a half by default. But even the new, modestly upgraded model is a bulky chunkster, especially on smaller wrists. Anyone else looking for a big Apple Watch change should wait until 2024.
Meanwhile, you can temporarily double the battery life by taking away power-draining features.
• Enable low-power mode: You can quickly enable low-power mode for set periods. Press the side button to open the Control Center, then tap on the battery percentage and scroll down.
Just beware: It does disable some of the lifesaving heart-rate notifications and the power-hungry always-on display. When double tap is available, low-power mode will also disable that gesture.
• Reduce workout sensor readings: Go to Settings > Workout, then tap Fewer GPS and Heart Rate Readings to enable. When in low-power mode, the watch won’t capture GPS or heart-rate data as frequently during outdoor workouts, further extending battery life.
You can also disable some functions. I managed to squeeze 48 hours out of the Series 9 by turning off the most battery-intensive ones, but it’s a trade-off:
• Double tap: When the feature rolls out to Series 9 models next month, you can turn it off. Go to Settings > Gestures > Double Tap to disable.
• Always-on display: Go to Settings > Display & Brightness. Tap Always On to disable.
• Background app refresh: Go to Settings > General. Scroll down to Background App Refresh to disable entirely or turn off for certain apps.
• Reduce display brightness: In Settings > Display & Brightness, you can adjust the default setting.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
