I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
Hey FjordCruiser! So this will surely depend, it certainly isn't a mistake. If you had the aluminum Apple Watch, the charger was plastic. The stainless steel, titanium, and Edition models all shipped with a stainless steel charging puck. So the difference is extremely minimal. Check out these images below. Can you tell which is which? One is the image of the slow stainless steel puck while the other is Apple's image of the new fast charge puck.
The difference is one of them has a more matte finish while the other is glossier. It is easier to tell in person versus the images online, but the difference is super subtle.
On top of that, it isn't just Apple's chargers. If you look at Belkin's Fast Charge module can you differentiate that from any other third-party Apple Watch module that charges more slowly? Talking specifically about the puck itself. They are identical.
These are just some of the issues I'm talking about. I hope that didn't entirely ruin the article for you, but it certainly wasn't an error.
Please note that those are literally the same image file, so it would be surprising if they actually did look different. Still pretty sure the physical difference is on the other end, not shown in the image.
I recently purchased an Apple Watch 7. There is zero documentation included in the box on the charger and the charger itself has no markings on it what so ever. They also make no mention that you need a 20W USB C adapter to make use of the fast charging capabilities.
Seriously, I am struggling to understand what's so hard about looking at the other end of the cable. If it's USB-A, it's not a fast charger.
Looking at the other end of the cable is easy. The issue is knowing that that's the difference. I had no clue until I read Andrew's article here. Apple in no way makes it clear when you buy an Apple Watch and since many people already have charging pucks or a charging stand they would just leave the new puck in the box and keep using the old puck, especially since the new puck is USB C and many/most people will have USB A supplies that they're using. That's just what I did - I opened the box, saw the new puck and the USB C connector and thought "I don't have a USB C charger; I'll just use my old puck. They're the same thing anyway."
Honestly, is it that hard for Apple to actually print something on the cord itself?
Also, there is no need to mention that "you need a 20W USB C adapter to make use of the fast charging capabilities."Apple does not sell any USB-C adapters that are less than 20-watts. A search on Amazon also did not turn up any USB-C adapters that were less than 20-watts. Maybe such a thing exists somewhere, but it appears that it would be hard to find.
True. My thought was that people may be using non-apple USB C chargers but after I posted I thought about whether lower-power chargers exist. I don't know if the USB C ports on the MBP or other computers are all 20W or not; they may be lower power.
This article not has mistakes it’s basically misinformation. Won’t go into everything that was wrong(anybody that has a new Apple Watch 7 know where the mistakes are.
What I would like to point out is even though I do have a fast charging puck, it’s not always fast charging. If I charge before bedtime it is very quick, but if I put it on the charger say at 9pm it takes forever, just like my iPhone 11. During the day it will completely charge in under an hour but at nighttime could take as long as 5 hrs. I don’t see the point.
Is there a setting to eliminate slow charging on both the watch & phone. Thanks for any feedback
This article not has mistakes it’s basically misinformation. Won’t go into everything that was wrong(anybody that has a new Apple Watch 7 know where the mistakes are.
What I would like to point out is even though I do have a fast charging puck, it’s not always fast charging. If I charge before bedtime it is very quick, but if I put it on the charger say at 9pm it takes forever, just like my iPhone 11. During the day it will completely charge in under an hour but at nighttime could take as long as 5 hrs. I don’t see the point.
Is there a setting to eliminate slow charging on both the watch & phone. Thanks for any feedback
Yes there is a setting. What you are experiencing is the "optimized charging" that tries to help your battery last quite a bit longer -- kinda like those Tesla owners who know they don't need 100% battery because their electric cars are super long range compared to others and so they only charge their battery pack to 80%, but it is MORE like charging your electric car using the Level-2 home charging instead of the DC fast-charging stations. The idea is that if/when the iPhone or Apple Watch will be on the charger for an extended period (like when you're asleep) then it is best to slow-charge them.
Slow charging = longer battery life, but inconvenient Fast charging = convenient, but shorter battery life
The "Battery Health" on your phone will stay higher for longer with "Optimized Charging" turned on.
On your iPhone you can find it at:
Settings -> Battery -> Battery Health -> Optimized Battery Charging
From your Apple Watch (inexplicably NOT from the Watch app on your iPhone) you need to go to:
Settings -> Battery -> Battery Health -> Optimized Battery Charging
Turn it OFF if you want to always fast charge.
NOTE: On the Watch app on the iPhone you cannot access the "Battery" settings at all -- only "General", "Display & Brightness" and like 7 other settings -- no "Battery" option.
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
Hey FjordCruiser! So this will surely depend, it certainly isn't a mistake. If you had the aluminum Apple Watch, the charger was plastic. The stainless steel, titanium, and Edition models all shipped with a stainless steel charging puck. So the difference is extremely minimal. Check out these images below. Can you tell which is which? One is the image of the slow stainless steel puck while the other is Apple's image of the new fast charge puck.
The difference is one of them has a more matte finish while the other is glossier. It is easier to tell in person versus the images online, but the difference is super subtle.
On top of that, it isn't just Apple's chargers. If you look at Belkin's Fast Charge module can you differentiate that from any other third-party Apple Watch module that charges more slowly? Talking specifically about the puck itself. They are identical.
These are just some of the issues I'm talking about. I hope that didn't entirely ruin the article for you, but it certainly wasn't an error.
Please note that those are literally the same image file, so it would be surprising if they actually did look different. Still pretty sure the physical difference is on the other end, not shown in the image.
I recently purchased an Apple Watch 7. There is zero documentation included in the box on the charger and the charger itself has no markings on it what so ever. They also make no mention that you need a 20W USB C adapter to make use of the fast charging capabilities.
In *ALL* of these images, I see ONE clear difference (aside from the USB-C versus USB-A plug which is really obvious). The fast charging cable does NOT grow thicker near the puck, but the slow-charging cable does grow thicker near the puck (likely to house the controller chip).
HOWEVER, the first image posted is clearly the same image twice because both of those charging cables grow larger near the puck. So this seemed like an attempt to mislead people to make a point -- perhaps it was a copy/paste error.
Anyway, I would concede that Apple *could* have done something to make it clearer (like etched a lightning bolt on the back of the fast-charging puck). But I imagine the design team did not like that since eventually ALL of their charging pucks will be fast-charging pucks that are backwards-compatible with older Apple Watches. And a difference already existed.
The big question is this..... while the USB-A charging puck that came with the Stainless Steel Apple Watches had a metal ring, it did NOT have a USB-C plug -- so its easy to distinguish. BUT, did the older (pre-Series-7) USB-C charger for Apple Watch come in all-plastic white or did it also have the metal ring. I keep hearing about the in-the-box charger that came with the stainless steel Apple Watches, but that one does not matter. It clearly has a USB-A plug.
I cannot find old images of a USB-C Apple Watch charger that Apple sold prior to selling the Series 7 -- though some say it existed. If it had a metal ring around the puck AND the end of the cable did NOT increase in thickness near the puck, then differentiating that sold-separately puck from the new fast-charging puck would be difficult.
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
Hey FjordCruiser! So this will surely depend, it certainly isn't a mistake. If you had the aluminum Apple Watch, the charger was plastic. The stainless steel, titanium, and Edition models all shipped with a stainless steel charging puck. So the difference is extremely minimal. Check out these images below. Can you tell which is which? One is the image of the slow stainless steel puck while the other is Apple's image of the new fast charge puck.
The difference is one of them has a more matte finish while the other is glossier. It is easier to tell in person versus the images online, but the difference is super subtle.
On top of that, it isn't just Apple's chargers. If you look at Belkin's Fast Charge module can you differentiate that from any other third-party Apple Watch module that charges more slowly? Talking specifically about the puck itself. They are identical.
These are just some of the issues I'm talking about. I hope that didn't entirely ruin the article for you, but it certainly wasn't an error.
Please note that those are literally the same image file, so it would be surprising if they actually did look different. Still pretty sure the physical difference is on the other end, not shown in the image.
I recently purchased an Apple Watch 7. There is zero documentation included in the box on the charger and the charger itself has no markings on it what so ever. They also make no mention that you need a 20W USB C adapter to make use of the fast charging capabilities.
Yes, and the same was true at the Store.
My grandson bought a Series 7 last week. The Apple rep was great and he mentioned fast charging -- but I had to ask if it needed a 20W charger for it to work. The guy looked a little sheepish and admitted that it did. Then he held up 20W brick that was laying on the table for that purpose.
I suspect they get beat up in the store when they try to tack an extra $20 onto the sale, so they just avoid the topic.
Fast charging is nice for those times when you wake up and notice you forgot to charge your watch before you went to bed, However, fast charging all the time has shown to reduce the total life of the battery. In other words if you don’t need the quick juice then it’s actually better to use a standard charge. This goes for all lithium batteries. Fast charge = more heat and more heat = bad for battery. Regardless of brand or device. This is just how batteries (currently) work. It my belief that apple doesn’t really embrace fast charging like other companies because they know that repeated fast charging will lead to accelerated battery degradation. You notice that IPhones “fast charge” is not nearly as fast is Samsung. It’s by design not because Apple lacks the ability. Personally I could care less about fast charging as a feature. But that’s me
I NEVER forget!
But not because I'm so conscientious but only because I wear my watch all night -- both for sleep tracking and for safety related to its Fall Detection and LTE abilities.
It's one of the big reasons for me to upgrade to a series 7 -- to reduce the amount of time its on the charger in the morning. The only thing stopping me is that my Series 4 is working so well (except on the treadmill with Fitness+).
If you would ever consider trading in that Series 4, now is the time. Apple bumped up the trade-in value across the board for Heart Month and it will only depreciate from here. The fast charging alone makes it worth it.
Still not clear what you’re suggesting. Are you saying there are older USB-C pucks that won’t deliver a fast charge to a series 7, even when plugged into a charger of sufficient power?
If you go to the Apple online store, the USB-C pucks are listed as fast charging and the USB-A pucks are not, which makes sense, since USB-A can’t deliver the wattage needed for a fast charge. This is the source of my suggestion that differentiation via physical inspection should be easy - just look at the other end.
Correct. The older USB-C pucks won't deliver a fast charger to a series 7 no matter how much power the charger is capable of. Right now if you visit Apple's store they've discontinued the old USB-C pucks and replaced them with the new ones. There are TWO versions of the USB-C chargers -- one with fast charge support and one without. They look nearly identical but Apple changed the internals to allow faster charging.
Bought a Gold Aluminum Series 6 the last week they were for sale because Apple stopped selling Gold Aluminum in Series 7. It charges from 1% to 100% in no more than 90 minutes. It takes 40 to 50 hours to go back down to 1%. I run my Series 6 WATCH always in Theatre Mode except during my Cycling Workouts and always with Do Not Disturb and Silent ON. After an hour on the “slow” charger my Series 6 is around 85% charged. I don’t get why my results are so different than what AppleInsider is reporting. My Series 6 WATCH charges much faster and stays charged much longer than the article would lead you to believe will be the case.
Still not clear what you’re suggesting. Are you saying there are older USB-C pucks that won’t deliver a fast charge to a series 7, even when plugged into a charger of sufficient power?
If you go to the Apple online store, the USB-C pucks are listed as fast charging and the USB-A pucks are not, which makes sense, since USB-A can’t deliver the wattage needed for a fast charge. This is the source of my suggestion that differentiation via physical inspection should be easy - just look at the other end.
Correct. The older USB-C pucks won't deliver a fast charger to a series 7 no matter how much power the charger is capable of. Right now if you visit Apple's store they've discontinued the old USB-C pucks and replaced them with the new ones. There are TWO versions of the USB-C chargers -- one with fast charge support and one without. They look nearly identical but Apple changed the internals to allow faster charging.
Weird. I’m not finding any USB-C adapters at the Apple online store that don’t support fast charging. There are the two previously mentioned watch pucks, USB-A standard charge, and USB-C fast charge, which is also the puck included with the series 7 watch.
So the problem, such as it is, is that someone might take their new watch and charge it with older gear and not get the fast charge feature. I can see how this might cause some confusion for customers who don’t understand anything about the tech, but that’s what customer support is for.
When taken in context with some of the other points in my first comment up thread, it just seems like the complaints are a bit overwrought, like the black-and-white, slo-mo ‘problem statement’ video clip at the start of an infomercial for a new Ronco gadget.
Weird. I’m not finding any USB-C adapters at the Apple online store that don’t support fast charging. There are the two previously mentioned watch pucks, USB-A standard charge, and USB-C fast charge, which is also the puck included with the series 7 watch.
I bought one in November of 2019 and it is now listed as discontinued at other sellers. I gave it to a family member with my prior watch when picking up a series 7. Part number: MX2H2AM/A.
First world problem, I agree, but like someone else said, all 'issues' we discuss on this site would probably fall under that class. That said, it's an 'annoying' issue. Why is the MagSafe Duo Charger still even being sold without being upgraded... I dont own one, and may never, but it doesn't change the fact that unlike me/us, most people dont know how to tell these differences. I guess the argument on the other side is that maybe a lot of people dont know or care about fast charging for the watch?
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
The silver colored trim does not indicate fast charging. Steel Apple Watches have always come with a more premium silver trim charging puck whereas the cheaper aluminum watches come with plastic charging pucks. I have a steel series 5 and it came with the steel charging puck.
It’s too bad you don’t proof check your own comments. If you’re going to sound like a total douche it’s nice to at least be right, just saying…
I've never bought the steel Apple Watch, so not sure what that puck looks like. but on my fast-charge aluminum Series 7, it's not just the side trim that's metal--the back and sides of the puck are matte finish metal with a white plastic front. My standard Apple puck is white plastic all around, so there's no mistaking which is which.
This article points to a real issue, though it easily could be (and probably IS) connected to chip shortages and supply chain issues--why would Apple just introduce this and then not support it? I had to laugh out loud when I read "After a rumored redesign was ditched..." a phrase only an Apple Insider writer could write, since it states, as FACT, the ditching of something that was only rumored. How do you ditch something for which there's no proven existence? There is no evidence that a redesign or ditching of same are true.
I've never bought the steel Apple Watch, so not sure what that puck looks like. but on my fast-charge aluminum Series 7, it's not just the side trim that's metal--the back and sides of the puck are matte finish metal with a white plastic front. My standard Apple puck is white plastic all around, so there's no mistaking which is which.
This article points to a real issue, though it easily could be (and probably IS) connected to chip shortages and supply chain issues--why would Apple just introduce this and then not support it? I had to laugh out loud when I read "After a rumored redesign was ditched..." a phrase only an Apple Insider writer could write, since it states, as FACT, the ditching of something that was only rumored. How do you ditch something for which there's no proven existence? There is no evidence that a redesign or ditching of same are true.
The part number (MX2H2AM/A) I mention above looks nearly exactly like the current fast-charge one packaged with the Series 7. That one (MX2H2AM/A) just has a bit more of a shine to it, but hard to tell apart if you dont know. It was sold directly from apple w/o a watch purchase needed.
Agree though that it's probably chip shortages, and agree so much with the rest of your comment about people stating things as a FACT. Even if you had 'proof' what's your source; some fake leak? Unless apple came out and said it, it shouldnt be stated as a fact. Apple Insider is not the only site that does this though. But hey... eyeballs...
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
The silver colored trim does not indicate fast charging. Steel Apple Watches have always come with a more premium silver trim charging puck whereas the cheaper aluminum watches come with plastic charging pucks. I have a steel series 5 and it came with the steel charging puck.
It’s too bad you don’t proof check your own comments. If you’re going to sound like a total douche it’s nice to at least be right, just saying…
I had Apple Watch 6 Titan Edition and bought Apple Watch 7 Titan edition. The colors of the metals in the pluck are different (6th being shinier, like still, 7th more dull in color like Aluminium).
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
The silver colored trim does not indicate fast charging. Steel Apple Watches have always come with a more premium silver trim charging puck whereas the cheaper aluminum watches come with plastic charging pucks. I have a steel series 5 and it came with the steel charging puck.
It’s too bad you don’t proof check your own comments. If you’re going to sound like a total douche it’s nice to at least be right, just saying…
I had Apple Watch 6 Titan Edition and bought Apple Watch 7 Titan edition. The colors of the metals in the pluck are different (6th being shinier, like still, 7th more dull in color like Aluminium).
So you can distinguish 6th and 7th versions puck.
But can you tell which one’s a fast charging vs std?
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
The silver colored trim does not indicate fast charging. Steel Apple Watches have always come with a more premium silver trim charging puck whereas the cheaper aluminum watches come with plastic charging pucks. I have a steel series 5 and it came with the steel charging puck.
It’s too bad you don’t proof check your own comments. If you’re going to sound like a total douche it’s nice to at least be right, just saying…
Actually, Mongobongo, you're very quick to go on the attack, but there are two ways to tell the new fast-charging metal pucks from the older ones: first, the new one has an aluminum surround with a matte finish, and the older ones have a polished stainless steel finish. Second, the new one is USB-C.
So it's actually quite simple. Perhaps you are the one who needs some better fact-checking, or as you call it, "proof check", whatever that is. Perhaps you meant proofread?
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
The silver colored trim does not indicate fast charging. Steel Apple Watches have always come with a more premium silver trim charging puck whereas the cheaper aluminum watches come with plastic charging pucks. I have a steel series 5 and it came with the steel charging puck.
It’s too bad you don’t proof check your own comments. If you’re going to sound like a total douche it’s nice to at least be right, just saying…
Actually, Mongobongo, you're very quick to go on the attack, but there are two ways to tell the new fast-charging metal pucks from the older ones: first, the new one has an aluminum surround with a matte finish, and the older ones have a polished stainless steel finish. Second, the new one is USB-C.
So it's actually quite simple. Perhaps you are the one who needs some better fact-checking, or as you call it, "proof check", whatever that is. Perhaps you meant proofread?
I appreciate you finding me a difference between these two cables. I want to say first that there's tons of misinformation in this article. The first is the you need a 20W charger. You need a 18W charger per Apple's own site: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212769
Next thing is there are two genuine first party USB-C Apple Watch cables, the non-fast charging one being discontinued (can still be purchased from third party retailers):
The original non-fast charging cable:
The fast charging cable:
As you can see one difference is the extra shielding on the non-fast usb-c cable that you can see in the image; it's toward the puck as well as the USB-C connector itself. The newer fast charging cable does not have this extra shielding and is straight flush from the USB-C connector directly to the puck.
Another difference is that the new fast charging usb-c cable has an aluminum matte finish, the non-fast charging one is stainless steel. These are the only two genuine Apple USB-C chargers at the time of posting.
I was really enjoying reading this article about a piece of tech that I love wearing, Apple Watch Series 7 45mm. But then my enjoyment of the article came to a dead stop. The writer of this article says it is all but impossible to differentiate between the “standard” Apple Watch charging puck (USB-A) and the series 7 charging puck (USB-C)… The charging puck that comes with the series 7 is distinctly different, it has a silver colored trim around the outer edge! I doubt anyone would fail to differentiate between the slower charging plain white puck and the silver edged faster charging puck (they even feel distinctly different if handled with our eyes closed. Yet again someone publishes an article which contains a blaring mistake, I’m guessing that the articles printed on AI don’t go through a “proof checking” process because this isn’t the first article I’ve found to contain mistakes (an occasional acknowledgment of my eagle eyes would be very welcome. But it can’t be nice having an article taken to task by someone who doesn’t claim to be a journalist, so the deafening silence doesn’t surprise me…).
Hey FjordCruiser! So this will surely depend, it certainly isn't a mistake. If you had the aluminum Apple Watch, the charger was plastic. The stainless steel, titanium, and Edition models all shipped with a stainless steel charging puck. So the difference is extremely minimal. Check out these images below. Can you tell which is which? One is the image of the slow stainless steel puck while the other is Apple's image of the new fast charge puck.
The difference is one of them has a more matte finish while the other is glossier. It is easier to tell in person versus the images online, but the difference is super subtle.
On top of that, it isn't just Apple's chargers. If you look at Belkin's Fast Charge module can you differentiate that from any other third-party Apple Watch module that charges more slowly? Talking specifically about the puck itself. They are identical.
These are just some of the issues I'm talking about. I hope that didn't entirely ruin the article for you, but it certainly wasn't an error.
Neither of those two images are of a fast charger. Here you will see which is which and the differences:
Comments
Honestly, is it that hard for Apple to actually print something on the cord itself?
True. My thought was that people may be using non-apple USB C chargers but after I posted I thought about whether lower-power chargers exist. I don't know if the USB C ports on the MBP or other computers are all 20W or not; they may be lower power.
Slow charging = longer battery life, but inconvenient
Fast charging = convenient, but shorter battery life
The "Battery Health" on your phone will stay higher for longer with "Optimized Charging" turned on.
On your iPhone you can find it at:
Settings -> Battery -> Battery Health -> Optimized Battery Charging
From your Apple Watch (inexplicably NOT from the Watch app on your iPhone) you need to go to:
Settings -> Battery -> Battery Health -> Optimized Battery Charging
Turn it OFF if you want to always fast charge.
NOTE: On the Watch app on the iPhone you cannot access the "Battery" settings at all -- only "General", "Display & Brightness" and like 7 other settings -- no "Battery" option.
In *ALL* of these images, I see ONE clear difference (aside from the USB-C versus USB-A plug which is really obvious). The fast charging cable does NOT grow thicker near the puck, but the slow-charging cable does grow thicker near the puck (likely to house the controller chip).
HOWEVER, the first image posted is clearly the same image twice because both of those charging cables grow larger near the puck. So this seemed like an attempt to mislead people to make a point -- perhaps it was a copy/paste error.
Anyway, I would concede that Apple *could* have done something to make it clearer (like etched a lightning bolt on the back of the fast-charging puck). But I imagine the design team did not like that since eventually ALL of their charging pucks will be fast-charging pucks that are backwards-compatible with older Apple Watches. And a difference already existed.
The big question is this..... while the USB-A charging puck that came with the Stainless Steel Apple Watches had a metal ring, it did NOT have a USB-C plug -- so its easy to distinguish. BUT, did the older (pre-Series-7) USB-C charger for Apple Watch come in all-plastic white or did it also have the metal ring. I keep hearing about the in-the-box charger that came with the stainless steel Apple Watches, but that one does not matter. It clearly has a USB-A plug.
I cannot find old images of a USB-C Apple Watch charger that Apple sold prior to selling the Series 7 -- though some say it existed. If it had a metal ring around the puck AND the end of the cable did NOT increase in thickness near the puck, then differentiating that sold-separately puck from the new fast-charging puck would be difficult.
First world problem, I agree, but like someone else said, all 'issues' we discuss on this site would probably fall under that class. That said, it's an 'annoying' issue. Why is the MagSafe Duo Charger still even being sold without being upgraded... I dont own one, and may never, but it doesn't change the fact that unlike me/us, most people dont know how to tell these differences. I guess the argument on the other side is that maybe a lot of people dont know or care about fast charging for the watch?
As of today (2022.02.04) at Best Buy https://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-watch-magnetic-charger-to-usb-type-c-cable-1m-white/6334723.p?skuId=6334723, the tittle shows USB-C but the image is (incorrectly) USB-A. At amazon, its shows the proper image: https://www.amazon.com/Apple-Watch-Magnetic-Charger-USB-C/dp/B07XR9TYQ1 and shows discontinued.
This article points to a real issue, though it easily could be (and probably IS) connected to chip shortages and supply chain issues--why would Apple just introduce this and then not support it? I had to laugh out loud when I read "After a rumored redesign was ditched..." a phrase only an Apple Insider writer could write, since it states, as FACT, the ditching of something that was only rumored. How do you ditch something for which there's no proven existence? There is no evidence that a redesign or ditching of same are true.
Agree though that it's probably chip shortages, and agree so much with the rest of your comment about people stating things as a FACT. Even if you had 'proof' what's your source; some fake leak? Unless apple came out and said it, it shouldnt be stated as a fact. Apple Insider is not the only site that does this though. But hey... eyeballs...
So it's actually quite simple. Perhaps you are the one who needs some better fact-checking, or as you call it, "proof check", whatever that is. Perhaps you meant proofread?
Next thing is there are two genuine first party USB-C Apple Watch cables, the non-fast charging one being discontinued (can still be purchased from third party retailers):
The original non-fast charging cable:
The fast charging cable:
As you can see one difference is the extra shielding on the non-fast usb-c cable that you can see in the image; it's toward the puck as well as the USB-C connector itself. The newer fast charging cable does not have this extra shielding and is straight flush from the USB-C connector directly to the puck.
Another difference is that the new fast charging usb-c cable has an aluminum matte finish, the non-fast charging one is stainless steel. These are the only two genuine Apple USB-C chargers at the time of posting.
Neither of those two images are of a fast charger. Here you will see which is which and the differences: