{"id":789376,"date":"2022-09-01T06:00:14","date_gmt":"2022-09-01T13:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cultofmac.com\/?p=789376"},"modified":"2022-08-31T17:37:44","modified_gmt":"2022-09-01T00:37:44","slug":"apple-watch-pro-endurance-sports","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cultofmac.com\/news\/apple-watch-pro-endurance-sports","title":{"rendered":"Apple Watch Pro will be for endurance sports, not extreme sports"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Apple Watch got a larger screen last year with the Series 7 update, most commentators just yawned<\/a>. Apparently screen size isn\u2019t everything. It\u2019s what you do with your watch that counts.<\/p>\n

So I was surprised to read recent rumors of an Apple Watch Pro<\/a> with an even bigger screen. Supposedly, this larger model, with its tougher titanium case, will be ideal for extreme sports. But does a bigger screen really help when you\u2019re bungee jumping? And could titanium ever be rugged enough to withstand whitewater rafting?<\/p>\n

Something about all this doesn\u2019t add up. Instead, I suspect Cupertino will position the Apple Watch Pro model as a wearable for endurance sports. A bigger watch means a bigger battery. And in endurance sports, you really need that extra juice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Who really needs a bigger battery?<\/h2>\n

When Apple Watch launched in 2015, people griped about the battery because it lasted less than 24 hours. Back then, smartwatches like the Pebble<\/a>, with their low-powered displays and slow processors, could go seven days on a single charge.<\/p>\n

In reality, battery life turned out to be a non-issue for most users. Once you get into the habit of charging your Apple Watch on your nightstand, you can forgot all about it. But there was one group of users who had a very big problem with the battery: endurance athletes.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s all about endurance<\/h2>\n

As the name suggests, endurance sports<\/a> are all about enduring sustained exertion. Think cycling, running marathons or doing an Ironman Triathlon<\/a>. So, endurance workouts tend to last much longer than other workout types.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a keen distance runner<\/a> myself. The first time I ever used my Apple Watch for a race was the 2016 New York City Marathon<\/a>. When I told Apple\u2019s press team I was going test Apple Watch on a marathon, they warned me to put it in\u00a0Power Saving Mode<\/a> before I started. Otherwise, they worried the battery wouldn\u2019t last for the entire race.<\/p>\n

Power Saving Mode disables all but essential features. It meant I\u2019d get no heart rate readings during the marathon. So I decided to take the risk and leave my watch in normal mode. Fortunately, the battery held out for the full 3 hours and 40 minutes it took me to complete the race. But other runners were not so lucky.<\/p>\n

On average, it takes 4 hours and 24 minutes<\/a> to complete the NYC Marathon. Some runners take more than six hours. But the Apple Watch SE battery can only manage a five-hour workout<\/a>. Series 7 lasts up to six hours<\/a>. When you consider that you\u2019ll use up some battery just getting to the starting line, that\u2019s a little tight.<\/p>\n

Triathlon support in watchOS 8 provides a clue<\/h2>\n

Battery life is an even bigger problem for triathletes. The average time it takes to complete a half-Ironman is around six hours<\/a>. A full Ironman typically takes more than 12 hours. There\u2019s no way today\u2019s Apple Watch battery could last that long.<\/p>\n

Which is odd, when you consider that watchOS 9 adds support for logging triathlons<\/a> with its new Multisport<\/a> feature. Currently in beta, this update is scheduled to launch this fall, which happens to be at the same time as the rumored Apple Watch Pro. That\u2019s why I suspect the bigger battery in the Pro version (or whatever Cupertino decides to call the new model) will be marketed by Apple as ideal for endurance sports like triathlons.<\/p>\n

Just how much bigger would Apple Watch Pro need to be?<\/h2>\n

To provide serious support for triathlons, Apple Watch Pro would need to have at least twice the battery capacity of Series 7. And that means, roughly speaking, the battery itself would need to be physically twice as large.<\/p>\n

If you watch the iFixIt teardown of Series 7<\/a>, you\u2019ll see the battery is the Apple Watch’s largest single component. It already accounts for around a third of the wearable’s overall volume. There\u2019s no way Cupertino could squeeze a double-size battery in there.<\/p>\n

One option would be to make the watch thicker, while keeping the screen and band sizes the same as the 45mm model. But the watch already looks pretty thick. Any thicker and it just wouldn\u2019t look like a premium device. Especially if the rumors of a new flatter-sided design<\/a> are true. A flat edge wouldn’t hide the Apple Watch’s thickness as well as the current curved design.<\/p>\n

The other, more likely, option would be to scale up the entire watch. This would make it slightly larger than the current large model (reportedly 47mm versus the current 45mm<\/a>). It likely would require its own bands, too. So Apple would be selling bands in three different sizes:<\/p>\n