But Apple said NO - battery was at 80% "only". It needs to be at 79% or less for Apple to "allow" the user to pay for a battery replacement.
What's weird is this, at least used to be, a very flexible rule. I've replaced watches well over 80% health.
Then I called Apple support from home. They did some remote analysing, then 'allowed' me to get my watch fixed,
Was going to say, making an appointment at Apple or calling/chatting their support line, both just do remote diagnostics. I always save time and just do it through support.
She set up a repair process, but Apple wants $857 up front to even look at the watch now.
Yeah, that's the full replacement fee of the S5 Ceramic Edition. They want $800 for my S3 Edition too. I could buy a used one for like $200 lol. Sadly S5 Editions are holding their value, so i'm giving up on buying one until people start to realize they're overpaying. People still buy them for $500-700.
She did say in the notes from the original service request their diagnosis showed 83% battery life, not the 80% that I saw before sending it in. I have no idea why I was shown one figure, and they saw something different.
When you factory reset a watch then pair it again, it will go through the indexing phase and re-calculate the battery health. A trick people used to try to get better battery life out of iPhones was to backup, factory reset, then restore, but it doesn't really work like that.
As stated by the rep, if the actual repair cost was lower, then I would be refunded the difference.
This is true, if the watch was "inspected" (and, by this, I mean they'd preform another diagnostic) and any errors came up, they'd replace the watch probably under some warranty of sorts and cancel the $800 hold. But if you're complaining of battery health, and they see it's at 83%, they'll determine it to be "good" and replace it for the $857 replacement price.
Honestly, I guess I just keep wearing the watch until it crosses the magic 80% threshold. Thing is, it's a calculated risk: it might take a long time for that to happen, or a future watchOS update "calibrates" the battery differently...or Apple refuses service on the watch because it is of a certain age (probably the biggest concern here).
Yeah, keeping it until it hits 79% is your best move I think. That's the only mark Apple will replace it at. I mean if you really wanted to expedite it, you could probably leave it on overnight with the flashlight on (leaving the screen full brightness until it dies) and just run out the battery over and over again adding on cycles to degrade it.
Or you could also get an AppleCare+ plan on the watch, which requires a physical inspection I think. Then just take out one of the "Accidental Damage" claims on it for $89 and get a replacement.
I get the 79% rule can suck, but it's there to avoid just anyone from saying "hey my battery sucks" and getting a new unit even if they don't need one. Think of it like this: if the rule didn't exist, Apple wouldn't have a replacement for you when you do eventually hit 79% health.
I'll add in my experience replacing a Series 5 Edition battery:
I bought a Series 5 Titanium off eBay for like $200 maybe a year or two ago. The battery health showed something like 86%, but it was pretty bad. The battery would last a day just barely. I contacted Apple Support, they ran a diagnostic, and said "Yeah.. take this to the Apple Store." so I took it in, they run another diagnostic, and it throws a faulty ambient light sensor warning. Apparently my ambient light sensor was going haywire, causing the display to always be at full brightness. They replaced it under warranty, and I got a brand new Edition for free.
I lucked out, I know they'd want the full replacement cost if I didn't get that error code. Just have to try again another time I guess!
