That is highly subjective. I get what you're saying in regards to it being an artistic or jewelry item... and if that's what it was marketed as that's fine. I think it's as idiotic as most functionless jewelry, but nevertheless that is accurate.
However, I take issue with the implied correlation between expense and care. My Rolex is expensive, and yet I regularly take it scuba diving, rock climbing, etc, and aside from the expected scuffs it has been working flawlessly for the last 9 years. The crystal is actual optical sapphire, and it is still as clear as the day I got it, despite having taken rocks to the face.
Furthermore, other items also break your implied trend. My Glock 21 is extremely durable, but my Les Baer 1911, which cost 5 times as much, is far more durable. My Falcon Northwest is more durable than my Asus. My x5 is more durable than my mustang. My expensive furniture is more durable than the flimsy stuff I bought at Bed, Bath, and Beyond.
Need I continue?
My point is this; you get what you buy, not what you pay for. If you want to purchase durability, then you can spend money on durability. If you want to purchase semi-functional eye candy, then you can spend money on some amazingly pretty eye candy. That's the beauty of a free market, that's the beauty of capitalism. You can choose, and so can I.
I am not going to choose to purchase a product which, according to my personal standards, is inferior. At the moment I'm not even purchasing anything at all, I'm sticking with my 4s.