First, happy to engage in a discussion, so no need to get angry.
Second, you really use it the watch exclusively without the phone? That is actually very cool - something I have not done. Will have to try and see how that works.
Third, I did say that when the watch has a cell chip this would make more sense, but stand corrected that in your scenario with wifi this is still useful.
Fourth, using apple pay with the watch is faster than pulling out the phone so it is better. Getting turn cues on the watch without having to look at the watch or phone is better and safer. Fitness tracking is better because the watch has sensors that the phone does not. Taking pictures with a watch is convenient if your phone is not in reach as you stated, but objectively it is not better - lower quality, no flash. So based on this I stand by my better comment as not opinion.
Regardless of that, it will be interesting to see how many people send $400 for a watch and then another $250 (when it retails) for the added band. The article said they are offering the dual charging dock as a bonus to pre-orders, which I interpret (maybe incorrectly) that it will be another cost when it retails. Just seems that this could get expensive fast.
I use Apple Pay on both the watch and phone. I actually find the phone easier to use, as I can use it one handed without having to press the button with my other hand with the watch. Much easier to change payment methods with one hand, and finally, I find Apple Pay difficult to use on many readers, as I have to awkwardly twist my arm and wrist to get it to take, not to mention sometimes turning the screen away in a noisy location and can't hear the transaction tone.
The iPhone offers audible turn by turn direction. I'd hate to miss a subtle tap and not realize I missed a turn.
More accurate Fitness tracking can be handled with many things besides an Apple Watch, and in some cases better. My point is the watch is an accessory which purpose is to make things more convenient, with accepted compromises.
Again, you are subscribing better to something different than I am. Is it objectively better to miss a picture altogether, or capture it with something less than available in the iPhone? Never mind this is a gen 1 device with an 8MP camera, the same as the iPhone 6. In a year, it could have a 12MP camera and a flash. While the iPhone is always going to take objectively better pictures, a reasonably high quality photo that doesn't require finding ones camera is worth at least a thousand words, if not
What's interesting is that someone would spend $600-$1200 on an Apple Watch when they could only spend $400 for the exact same features. $250 is nothing to someone like that who finds the functionality useful. Considering the bands are interchangable and the price of many of Apples bands, $250 for a band that provides useful functions in certain situations is a no-brainier.
FaceTime would be fun, but likely drain the battery in like 10 minutes.
I think the main issue (besides the privacy/creep factor), is the size.
Of all of Apple's products that people complain about getting "too" thin, Apple Watch ain't one of them. It is chunky.
And Apple would love to NOT have a camera hump, they just can't seem to.
I get so tired of the "creepy" label when applied to a camera built into something small and useful. You want creepy -- how's this:
Shot on an iPhone
http://www.tmz.com/2016/07/14/dani-mathers-gym-pic-photo-police-report/
As for the battery drain, 10 minutes of FaceTime seems like baseless hyperbole, like those people who defended Apple's decision not to include GPS in Series 1 because it would drain the battery in minutes. The Apple Watch has always had the ability to make and take phone calls at the cost of battery life reduced to 3 hours of continuous calling -- imagine how quickly it would drain adding other high drain functions to continuous phone calls.