I think you’ll find the vast majority of watch people think smart watches are an abomination. It’s part of the reason the OP is even making the OP in the first place. If you want to think differently, by all means.

And here we come full circle. The OP is essentially an appeal for watch people to have a new perspective on smart watches. And what you're seeing in replies from myself, and others, is precisely that they're quite different beasts and here are x, y, and z things we don't like in those differences. In other words, just because it can tell the time and calls itself a watch doesn't mean it has so be something on the radars of 'watch people' and that they need to give a second chance because, to the person making the appeal, it's a 'watch'. The point is, many don't regard it to be a watch in the first place, so the appeal to give it a second chance kind of falls on deaf ears, as it's like asking a forum of trumpet players to give a synthesizer another chance. Both can be used as musical instruments, but that's about where the similarities and the interest between the two types of user ends.

You're getting a bit wound up on this, no pun intended, so it's the last time I will be replying to you. It's clear you love your smartwatch and don't like people saying it's not a watch. To the degree that you will repeatedly chase down their posts on a forum like this and, while accusing them of "ranting and wailing" seem to be doing a pretty good impression of that, yourself. Look, if you love your smartwatch - fabulous. Just accept that many - not just here, but in general - don't see it as a watch, but as a piece of consumer electronics with built in obsolescence. Those mechanical watches that you want to put down at every opportunity will be happily ticking in the decades ahead when today's smartwatches are landfill. That's a stone cold fact you can take to the bank. I return to my comment that they are two totally different items to be comparing. Have a good one.

It's the elephant in the room. Does someone spend a chunk of change on a watch that will still be ticking in decades to come, and can be passed to the next generation, or sold? Or do they buy a piece of consumer electronics, which will not only fail in time, but is designed from day one to have an obsolete date where it won't be updated or supported any longer, even if it is still working? This is why many don't even regard Apple watches and smart watches in general as even being watches. They're quite a different thing to watches.

Your argument would make sense if we lived in a time where laptops didn't go obsolete, then someone started selling laptops that did go obsolete, and people - bizarrely - started buying the latter. But that's never been the case. But in the watch world, we've been able to walk into stores for the past 100 years and buy watches that don't go obsolete. So to introduce competition to them, in the form of something that does go obsolete is quite noteworthy, because it's a different scenario and some people happily buy the latter.

And the problem with that is...? I think you're setting up a sort of strawman argument there, because a mechanical watch, and a piece of electronics that has an expiry date from the moment it's made aren't really comparable anyway. They're not the same thing.

It may be intellectually stimulating to defend the indefensible to a room like this, but I think you're seeing people's thoughts in the comments already. Personally, I don't like the obsolescence built into Apple watches. I find it quite nuts to actually desire that.