Exactly, it's pretty expensive given what it delivers and it's too 1.0 right now. I have a decent, cheapest watch right now ($100 \ 70 quid citizen ecodrive) which any $300 smart watch should at least match in a few areas.
It's a given that battery life will not match, but 3-4 days should be a reality and the battery should be replaceable. Apple probably have an advantage there as they have a retail network who can probably deliver instore battery changes.
It should be waterproof and robust. It doesn't need to be able to go to 200ft, but should cope with basic snorkeling and skin diving (30ft give or take, if a lardy yorkshire prop can do it, a $300 watch should be able to) plus the occasional bang against a rock.
The screen should be daylight readable without killing the battery.
Now once you have a few basics matched you then need some very convincing reasons for me to shell out the extra cost. From what I have seen it has some nice features, but no killer awesomeness. There will always be people who buy stuff because it's new, but theres the rest of us who need compelling reasons. I bought a note 3 because it's freaking awesome, for me it'd entirely worth the $700. $300 to avoid having to pull your phone out of your pocket to see who the email was from? (then you'll actually pull the phone out anyway to respond half the time). Oh and I will likely need to buy another in 2 to 3 years whereas a normal watch will last considerably longer and isn't a theft magnet?
The idea has potential, but I think they are lacking some killer practical uses, the price is too high and there are too many compromises, lets see what future ones manage (and even current ones once independent devs start rolling stuff out). Perhaps there is potential for GPS \ satnav related uses?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
