I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think 18 hours is taken as guaranteed. I would think most avid readers would already be aware of the 2.5 hours of heavy use which was claimed a little while ago.
I really don't agree with what you're saying about making the battery not 'look' bad using 'deliberate tactics'. That suggests dishonesty, which is probably what's feeding your rejection of the 18 hour claim.
The battery is what it is. It's about the size of a coin and it's only going to get smaller in the later releases. Week-long battery life at that size could be decades away.
The iPhone still has many API restrictions to preserve battery but nobody is running around exposing this as a scandal. It probably always will 'deliberately block developers' and so will the Watch. That is just sensible design not a tactic to mislead reviewers and potential purchasers. Owners are benefitting from these deliberate tactics every day.
Without that, some developers would just write whatever code features got them the most attention and to hell with your battery. Apple can't let their product be defined by bad programmers or bad expectations. The API will have many other restrictions to protect the product image. Just like the iPhone doesn't let you select comic sans as the main system font (unlike my Mum's phone).
Perhaps we can just agree, the watch lasts a whole day if you do what the watch is intended for, but if you want it to burn out before you've finished breakfast you can probably arrange for that too.
I hear what you say, however, I'm not saying Apple are being dishonest, only that we need to accept they are using, let's call them, "Tactics" to make things look at their best, and I can't blame them as a business for wishing to do that.
Let's use an Analogy.
I make bags for carrying things.
The handles on the bags are only so strong, as, at the moment it's hard to make strong handles.
I (don't ask how) have the ability to control what items you can put in the bags I'm selling.
Now..... Because these are a new product for me, I don't wish there to be lots of news stories about how rotten these bags are, as you put some heavy items in them, and the handles split/break off.
It would be all over the media that my bags are rubbish, and I don't want that to happen.
So I use a "TACTIC" and I (don't ask how!) limit what you can place in the bags.
This way my bags look pretty good. They carry things I recommend you carry and a weight I have set up as a max, so it all looks great and my bags become popular.
Later on in the year, when my bags are well established, have a good media report, customers have got used to them, more are being sold and all is looking rosy. I have a success.
THEN. I can start lifting my restrictions on what you can place in these bags, and reports, here and there will start coming in about handles breaking. But my bags are already a popular and well regarded item.
These few stories, will just get down to people using my bags wrong, not as I recommended, and the people putting too much in bags will be the ones to get the blame, not my bags as they are already a proven popular product.
That's how I see it.
It's not dishonest, it's clever tactics.
Without early restrictions being deliberately set in place things would look bad, and media reports would be negative and sales would stall.
This way it won't happen.
