> “There are very few products that allow you to hand someone cash and be given back time. This will be the Apple Watch metric to track: time saved.” Except al

> “There are very few products that allow you to hand someone cash and be given back time. This will be the Apple Watch metric to track: time saved.” Except all the other smart watches, including much better designed ones like the Moto 360, released in the past year and a half before Apple got into the market? Pray tell what is the Apple Watch's USP? The iPhone lock-in? I don't own a smart watch, because honestly the only explanation for them existing is: "it is too much work to take my $500 smartphone out of my pocket." This article is clearly a puff piece, and even its only argument for the device is "time saved" (which I'm guessing refers to that 5-7 sec it takes to get your phone?). Seriously someone please explain to me why you'd want this $350 brick or even a $250 360? That's half the cost of a smartphone again and only so it can relay events/info from your phone to your wrist? PS - I loved Wired quoting TechCrunch. That's great "journalism" right there.