[JimDabell]

New Apple Watches start at $269 and you can pick up a pair of Bluetooth headphones for less than $10 these days. Why are you saying $1,000?

It has battery life that lasts almost two days, which is more than enough for most people.

How is it exponentially more breakable? By what measure?

[nsxwolf]

$269 is still a lot more than $50. Where I'm from anyway.

The Shuffle was great and still easier to use than the standalone music playback capability of the Watch.

[JimDabell]

Sure, but $269 is far less than $1,000 too. If you want to complain that it's more expensive, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is the outright misrepresentation of the facts.

[JeremyBanks]

...plus the $1000 iPhone you need to use the watch?

[JimDabell]

You can buy a new, unsubsidised iPhone for $399, and everybody in the target market for Apple Watches already owns one anyway.

Why are people here so intent on misrepresenting the cost of Apple gear? You don't need to spend a grand on an iPhone to get an Apple Watch to work and you don't need to spend a grand on an Apple Watch either.