I agree; it's literally an iPhone 1. But I think the iPhone 1 looked the way it did due to some pretty heavy design-constraints—it wasn't simple, back then, to get the amount of hardware they did into the package-size. And the same is true today with the Watch. I fully expect the package to shrink and the design to become less "forced" and more "designed" over time.
Ah, here's the source: https://twitter.com/lukew/status/594628479766761472
There'll be a few iterations to make it nicer looking, can't say they did a bad job.
About the rectangular/circular form thing... I think the problem may be calling it a smartwatch. A smartphone isn't really a smartphone. It's a portable all-in-one (built in screen, speakers, microphone etc) computer, whose telephone functionality happens to be the least interesting (and at one point shifting to voice over ip, meaning it's as much a smartphone as your laptop or desktop computer is). Calling phones small tablets makes more sense, at least until recently when phones rival tablet sizes. But nobody really complains because the semantical evolution makes some sense and doesn't cause any real friction. But with a smartwatch, people expect it to look like this [0] but it doesn't, because it's main function is not telling time. Its main function is being a wrist computer, which happens to also be able to tell time. And that wrist computer does things that fit better in a rectangular form, which creates friction with people to whom a rectangular watch happens to be pretty ugly.
Anyway I didn't think the first iPhone was particularly pretty. I can't say the apple watch is different. In today's context it is nice in my opinion, just like the iphone was back then in comparison, but I still don't want an apple watch right now. I'm happy to wait out the 2016-17 versions.
[0] http://icdn8.digitaltrends.com/image/round-apple-watch-conce...
If you are talking about the entire table market dropping in usage then it isn't significant (6% y/y): http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25593415
Even if you have the iPad 2 for instance, it's a very capable device, there's no reason to go out right now and buy the latest iPad unless you specifically want extra features like Touch ID.
Sales have dropped off, but even the browser market share for iPad remains high among tablets.
Most of my travels are in Canada however, and in Vancouver , Calgary, or Toronto the ratio is inverted - more iPads than laptops. Business meetings too - lots of iPads.
I know my 5 year old prefers our iPad to any other device or toy - even the big screen projector. This is similar with other parents in our circles where iPad grounding is one of the more effective forms of discipline.
These are all anecdotes and in the grand scheme mean little, just a counter example to the "collecting dust" theory. They're also still outselling all Macs by 3x though it used to be 5x. So something is happening to iPad purchase trends but it's not clear why.
Without the subsidy of mobile phones people don't seem to buy new ones as fast. Doesn't mean the iPad is dying, just that the market is closer to saturated than it was 2 years ago.
Also you've shown a comparison between a first generation device and first generation device, what is particularly wrong with the watch?
Regarding aesthetics, clearly that's subjective, but many traditional watch enthusiasts (such as Benjamin Clymer of Hodinkee and Ariel Adams of aBlogToWatch) have had a number of good things to say about the hardware design.
From Hodinkee's fantastic Apple Watch piece[1]: "Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches, and those details add up to a really impressive piece of design"
Finally, to address your initial point, I see no evidence that his software taste is less refined, nor that his hardware work is getting lazy. iOS 7, which I suspect is what you're referring to regarding his software taste, received some negative feedback when first unveiled but has since become well liked, albeit with a few lingering usability concerns, especially since they refined it with iOS 8. The Apple Watch bands alone are incredibly well designed, with a number of improvements over traditional watch bands that the Swiss ought to be ashamed they hadn't invented yet[2]. I'll give two examples.
1. If you've ever changed a leather watch band, you'll know how much of a pain it is. Most people go to a watchmaker to change them. Apple Watch bands are easily interchangeable. How obvious, right? Yet nobody else does this.
2. If you've ever bought a watch with a metal link bracelet, you need to have it adjusted for you at the store. Why? Because you need a specialist tool to do it. If you ever need to change the size, you need to go into a store to get it readjusted[3]. Again, incredibly obvious to make this user interchangeable, yet nobody else did it.
If Ive was as lazy as you say, he would have been happy to use traditional watch bands, the type that every other watch and smartwatch uses, and require users to go into an Apple Store to change them or to adjust them. Two examples of great design, off the top of my head, just for watch bands - I can't imagine how you think he's lazy.
[1] http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review
[2] And this isn't due to a lack of innovation. The Swiss (and watchmakers of other countries too) spend a lot of time sweating the details on watch straps, buckles and deployant clasps, e.g. http://www.rolex.com/about-rolex/bracelets.html
[3] In addition, the tools for this often proprietary or vary by brand. Check out the variety of tools that are available for adjusting watch bracelets: http://www.ofrei.com/page237.html Leather watch strap spring bars (the little bit of metal that attaches the band to the lugs) are also often proprietary.
It isn't an iPhone on your wrist and when you actually use it has its own identity, behaviour patterns and user interface paradigms (tap, digital crown). Your argument is no different to the "iPad is just a bigger iPhone" which has been shown to be baseless by anyone who has ever owned one.
As for it being ugly I respectively disagree and given the popularity amongst fashion circles and in general I am guessing most others do too.
From MW: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
From Google: informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true. "I have received literally thousands of letters"
From dictionary.com: in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually: I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literal...
As I articulated, in both definitions it is not like having an iPhone on your wrist.
Not at all. If you pay attention to how people actually use the language, the word has both meanings, so either is correct. Such is the fluid nature of language. If you can't appreciate that, then I think you're very nice (in the original sense of the word).
This type of definition is how you defeat evil AIs