The Apple Watch Series 12's ceramic casing option is its most luxurious, offering a distinctive finish and highly scratch-resistant material at a price above both aluminum and titanium. Is it worth choosing? The ceramic Apple Watch starts at $899 , compared to $399 for aluminum and $699 for titanium. Available in Pearl White and Night Blue, it brings ceramic back to the lineup for the first time since the Series 5. It is aimed at buyers who want a more unusual and special Apple Watch, and are willing to pay for the material and appearance rather than additional features. Pearl White is particularly distinctive, with a lustrous, nonmetallic finish unlike anything offered in aluminum or titanium. For earlier ceramic Apple Watch models, Apple described a manufacturing process that combined zirconia powder with alumina before molding the case, heating it to form a dense solid, and polishing it with a diamond slurry. That process produced the smooth surface and rich white appearance that helped make the ceramic Apple Watch Edition so distinctive. The included band is part of that appeal. Apple pairs the ceramic watches with exclusive Sand and Navy Blue Sport Bands featuring ceramic pin-and-tuck closures that match their respective cases. The Sand band gives the Pearl White model a distinctive overall appearance, with the matching ceramic closure providing a detail absent from ordinary Sport Bands. Ceramic also offers a different look when paired with other bands. Pearl White creates a striking contrast with darker rubber or woven bands, while Night Blue offers a more understated combination. Metal bracelets remain an option, although their connectors will contrast with the ceramic case; buyers who prefer a coordinated metallic appearance may favor titanium with a Link Bracelet or Milanese Loop. Ceramic also offers a practical benefit beyond its appearance: resistance to cosmetic wear. Earlier ceramic Apple Watch models were known for cases that were exceptionally difficult to scratch, helping preserve their finish throughout years of use. Polished titanium can pick up visible surface scratches, so buyers concerned about their watch retaining its original appearance have a good reason to consider ceramic. Ceramic can still chip or crack under forceful impact, even though it resists scratches very well. It is a luxury case material with useful durability characteristics, rather than a substitute for the Apple Watch Ultra's rugged design. Like titanium, the ceramic Series 12 features a sapphire front crystal that is highly resistant to scratches. Aluminum models instead feature Ceramic Shield 2, which refers to the front cover rather than a ceramic case. Titanium provides sapphire for $200 less, but it does not replicate the ceramic casing's distinctive finish or material qualities. The ceramic models also include cellular connectivity as standard, while aluminum models offer a choice of GPS or GPS and Cellular. The $500 difference between their starting prices therefore covers more than the case material and front crystal, although ceramic remains a substantial premium even when comparing equivalent configurations. There is a compromise in weight and proportions. Ceramic models are larger and heavier than their aluminum and titanium counterparts, without providing a larger display. The larger ceramic model weighs 51.3 grams in Pearl White and 52.9 grams in Night Blue, compared to 44.9 grams for titanium. Internally, the ceramic Apple Watch Series 12 offers the exact same chip, sensors, display technology, and battery life as the aluminum and titanium versions. It also starts at $100 more than the Apple Watch Ultra 4 , despite the Ultra offering longer battery life and additional capabilities. Aluminum remains the stronger choice for buyers focused on features and value, while titanium offers a premium metallic finish and sapphire crystal at a lower price. Ceramic is for buyers who place greater importance on the material, finish, and sense of wearing something more unusual. If Pearl White is the Apple Watch you particularly want, neither titanium nor the Apple Watch Ultra offers a comparable substitute, regardless of their practical advantages. Do you think the ceramic Apple Watch models are worth buying? Let us know in the comments. Related Roundup: Apple Watch 12 Buyer's Guide: Apple Watch (Buy Now) Related Forum: Apple Watch This article, " Is It Worth Buying a Ceramic Apple Watch? " first appeared on MacRumors.com Discuss this article in our forums
Apple's iPhone 18 Pro Max placed first overall in a battery comparison of 32 smartphones, with other iPhone models leading individual tests and matching significantly more expensive devices. CNET assessed each phone using two tests totaling three hours and 45 minutes. One measured battery consumption during three hours of video streaming over Wi-Fi at maximum screen brightness. The other combined video playback, video calls, gaming, and social media use over 45 minutes. Both began at 100% charge, and the publication averaged the remaining percentages to produce its overall rankings. The iPhone 18 Pro Max and Apple's first foldable, the iPhone Duo, each finished the mixed-use test with 99% remaining, sharing first place. Google's Pixel 11 Pro XL retained 97%, improving on the Pixel 10 Pro XL's 93% result in the same test. The smaller iPhone 18 Pro delivered the strongest result in the video streaming test, retaining 94% of its charge after three hours. The iPhone 17 also performed well across both benchmarks, alongside Motorola's Razr and Razr Ultra models. CNET credited the iPhone 18 Pro Max's overall lead to a battery capacity increase over the iPhone 17 Pro Max, combined with the A20 Pro chip's efficiency and iOS 27 optimizations. Despite sharing first place in the mixed-use test, the $1,999 iPhone Duo tied for fourth overall. Its combined result matched the $699 iPhone 17e and $1,400 Motorola Razr Ultra, putting the less expensive iPhone alongside two foldable devices costing substantially more. Apple also led CNET 's comparison of average results by manufacturer for the second consecutive year. Only brands represented by multiple tested models were included, with OnePlus finishing second. The broader findings were less indicative of an improvement across the industry. According to CNET , phones tested in 2026 had approximately the same average battery performance as those tested in 2025 and 2024. Larger batteries do not necessarily translate into longer use between charges, since displays, processors, and other features also affect power consumption. The publication identified the iPhone 17 and iPhone 17e among its better-value options for battery endurance. Beyond Apple's devices, the $500 Motorola Moto G Stylus and $600 Motorola Edge both reached the overall top 10. Related Roundup: iPhone 18 Pro Tag: CNET Buyer's Guide: iPhone 18 Pro (Buy Now) Related Forum: iPhone This article, " iPhone 18 Pro Max Wins Battery Test Involving 32 Smartphones " first appeared on MacRumors.com Discuss this article in our forums
Apple's long-rumored smart glasses and AirPods with cameras are still on the way, according to one Chinese supplier's earnings report. Apple wants thin and light smart glasses. While companies tend to avoid spoiling future product plans when discussing their quarterly results, not everyone goes to the lengths Apple does for corporate secrecy. For one firm in China, the opposite seems to be the case. The filing by TCB Devices for its Q3 2026 financial results, as covered by iFeng , is fairly straightforward. It starts off advising of increased demand in the semiconductor, optical communication, and data center industries. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums
