This is probably part of the reason why it's limited to iPhone 5 or higher, since Bluetooth 4 didn't start getting put into iPhones until then.
So you want to be able to walk in, put expensive technology on your person completely unattended? Just have a whole bunch of watches laying on a table? While we're at it, they should untether their iPhone demos from the tables.
Because the alternative is to have the watch tethered to something, which equally hampers the experience.
Apple Watch likely already eclipsed that in pre-orders.
You underestimate how many tech nerds there are, 1 million is nothing. I have never ever seen a smartwatch on someone who could be described as a "non-techie" person. And the sales of the entire smartwatch category up until this point really back that up. It's not a mainstream device category. Or it wasn't, anyways. Things will definitely change now.
There is no consumer electronics product that is sellable to everyone. Every product has a defined market, either through marketing, disposable income available to certain regions of the world, etc.
Limiting your market is not inherently a bad thing. It gives you realistic and focused targets.
Let's look at the iPhone as an example. For the first several years of its life, it was targeted as a consumer device. Enterprise consumers were not considered and the phone was exceptionally limited in what it could provide to the enterprise consumer. They intentionally limited their market.
It wasn't until RIM shit the bed with Blackberry that Apple started capitalizing on that market, but they did so very slowly, because it was never part of the iPhone's original target market and other hardware makers could easily steal that spotlight by making it their primary focus. Even today, they're not exactly on the same level as Blackberry was in that market space, and Apple doesn't seem to be shedding many tears about it, because their focus on the standard personal-use consumer has completely paid off.
Let's also look at current Android users. A large sum of them look at Apple products as overhyped and something you pay an unnecessary premium, or "Apple tax", for. Whether or not you agree with that, it is a strongly-held perception. What about the Apple Watch makes that perception go away? If anything, they look at $200 Android Wear devices and feel it only re-enforces it. That's not a market worth tackling in its current state. They're specifically aiming this product at people who have already overcome the "Apple tax" perception. It's a clear market target. All Apple Watch will instill in Android users is interest in the smartwatch category as a whole, but they'll make their purchase in that category along the same lines as they did with their phone, plain and simple. The iPhone is still the more compelling introduction to Apple products, without question.
There's a few key differences here:
Using iBooks, Pages, Numbers, etc. as examples is a bit disingenuous. Those apps appeared when a device with a large enough screen to utilize them was made that happened to have the same OS as the phone. Had the iPad not been made, those apps would not exist. Period. iPhone equivalents were essentially throwaway added bonuses for what the target market was, iPad users.
For iBooks in particular, iPad is preferable, but your ability to actually read a book on your phone isn't hampered. You're not reading a book word by word or paragraph by paragraph, for instance. A keyboard will only happen on an Apple Watch if the ability to type isn't severely hampered by the experience, but the physical hardware limits of the small screen make the experience all but assured to be hamstrung. The example of Microsoft Band is a good example. Yes, it's there, but it's so not ideal that it becomes a novelty, a box to tick. The Photos app on Apple Watch is definitely not ideal, but the experience isn't reduced usability-wise. You still get to see the whole photo, it's just... really small. And it's not even the full app, as there's no editing tools. But by your logic, I should expect those tools to be there, even if they'd be near-impossible to use, because options are apparently more important than actual usability.
Lastly, comparing apps to an input function isn't even closely analogous. It's not even comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples to water.
The big selling point isn't that you never have to use your phone, though. There is an expectation that, in certain scenarios, you will still want to or have to reach for it. It's just taking the micro-uses out of play.
Computers are refreshed every 3-5 years. iPhone has been on the market for, what, 7 or 8? And during the past 2-3 years (or 4-5 years since the iPhone's first release), who is the only computer manufacturer to see growth in the computer sales market during that time and has consistently grown year over year since the release of the iPod nano? I'll let you take a wild guess.
In spite of that statement, though, you've compared against an unprovable metric. I mean, there's no way to prove that Mac sales growth is correlation with causation due to iPod and iPhone, but there's no method to disprove it, either. Although, just for kicks, Wall Street Journal definitely disagrees with your statement, even quoting Phil Schiller who states that the majority of first-time Mac purchasers already own an iPhone.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-second-best-seller-mac-1414428004
I don't think that Apple is terribly concerned about their overall market share with the Apple Watch like you seem to.
Apple Pay requires secure storage of your credit card details on a separate piece of silicon. So no, Apple Pay requests won't do shit. It's locked to Apple without the hardware present on an Android device to support it.
It's because tech geeks don't generally like it when a product they want is too expensive for them to afford. See: "Apple Tax" trolling.
THANK YOU.
