The Apple Watch has been a game-changer in the wearable tech space, but it's not without its flaws. One of its biggest weaknesses is its battery life, which is a critical issue for those seeking long-term health insights. While the Apple Watch is still the most accurate wearable I've tested, its daily recharge requirement often gets in the way of collecting valuable health metrics, especially during overnight wear. This is where smart rings and screenless bands come into play, offering a low-maintenance alternative for those seeking continuous health monitoring.
Personally, I think the Apple Watch's biggest weakness is its battery life. It's fascinating to see how wearables are increasingly competing on long-term health insights, and the Apple Watch's daily recharge requirement is a significant hurdle. What makes this particularly interesting is how smart rings and screenless bands have carved out a niche by doing the opposite of the Apple Watch: disappearing. They stay on your body for a week or more at a time, collecting health trends that a smartwatch misses while it's sitting on a charger.
In my experience, the Apple Watch consistently comes out on top in heart rate testing, but I've never managed to wear one to bed consistently. This is because the Apple Watch only takes about an hour to charge, and between late-night deadlines, kids, and an unpredictable schedule, I've never developed a reliable charging routine. This is a common issue, as I've spoken with researchers, athletes, and friends who chose another wearable simply because they could wear it around the clock.
Apple's sensors and software can already surface many of the same long-term health insights as a smart ring. The Vitals app flags signs of illness when one or more health signals are out of range, and tracks menstrual cycles and recovery metrics. However, these insights depend on consistent overnight wear, which means you have to remember to charge it before bed and not accidentally forget it on the charger. This is a significant challenge, as I've experienced firsthand.
One thing that immediately stands out is how smart rings are a completely different design and have their own compromises. Their smaller batteries mean they take less frequent samples, which is fine overnight when your vitals aren't changing much, but less ideal for capturing sudden spikes during interval training. In my testing of the Oura Ring 5, its measurement of my peak heart rate during a 3-mile run was 8 beats per minute lower than a chest strap, though average heart rate was nearly identical. The Apple Watch, by comparison, tracked almost identically with the chest strap even during those peaks.
This raises a deeper question: can the Apple Watch have its cake and eat it too? There are battery advancements trickling down the pipe, such as silicon-carbon-based battery technologies and more efficient processors, but these improvements won't push the Apple Watch anywhere near the week-long battery life that Garmin watches, smart rings, and screenless fitness bands deliver. In my opinion, if Apple wants week-long battery life without sacrificing accuracy, it will probably need to develop an entirely new wearable device.
A low-maintenance wearable like a smart ring that complements the Apple Watch could be the missing piece. While a ring would likely require giving up some workout-tracking precision compared to the Apple Watch or a thicker, sensor-based band, it would be a worthy sacrifice. I don't need another band on my wrist, and I'd be willing to trade some precision for the convenience of a smart ring. The winning formula, based on my experience testing both side by side, would be a watch-ring combo: the watch for notifications, workouts, and live training data, and the ring for everything that happens when you're not out and about.
Apple wouldn't be starting from scratch with a smart ring. It already has much of the health infrastructure in place through the Health app, years of biometric algorithms, and more than a decade of Apple Watch development. The company has even proven it can shrink heart rate sensors into a tiny earbud without sacrificing accuracy. However, the challenge isn't whether Apple could build a ring; it's whether it could catch up. Oura and Whoop have spent nearly a decade refining not just the hardware but the way people understand their health.
In my view, Apple has flirted with the idea of a smart ring for years, but the biggest argument against it has always been cannibalization. However, with the global smart ring market projected to grow from $519 million in 2026 to $3.77 billion by 2034, it's a category that's becoming hard to ignore. Apple has already successfully expanded a product category with minimal cannibalization of sales: the iPod. Even Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has since softened his stance, arguing that Apple should seriously consider a smart ring.
If I had to bet, I'd still say Apple doubles down on the Apple Watch in the near term rather than introducing a whole new category. Better batteries, more efficient chips, and new health features. But in the longer term, a ring doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore. And if my Infinite Loop -- my name for the hypothetical Apple Ring -- ever becomes a reality, I'll be first in line.
