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.
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.
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?