I'm not assuming anything. My point is that people choose things that are not well designed, knowing full well that choices like this are driven by other factors, such as function, price, brand, etc.
There are lots of companies that have produced mediocre, at best, designs that consumers buy anyway, but that doesn't mean it has to, or should, be that way.
General Motors is a great example, where for decades they produced very poorly designed cars / trucks, but they still sold millions of them. They didn't have to have crummy plastic interiors with horrible "velour" fabrics and switchgear that was designed in the early '70's, but that is exactly what they made until Honda and Toyota (and others) ate their lunch by offering much higher quality, better designed products.
Steve Jobs overarching thought about good design went back to their initial circuit boards, where he wanted to make them "look good", even though for all intents and purposes it shouldn't matter how a bunch of circuits and wires look.
From a physiological point of view, humans (and many animals) naturally are attracted to things of beauty, which you could equate to things that are well designed. That's a proven fact. We make compromises because we have to, including choosing items that are not exactly good designs.
I get the sense that Pebble has not invested in a design team with any experience in the watch or jewelry industry, because even old school digital watch companies like Casio produce better designed watches that easily could be converted into the same functionality that Pebble offers. Perhaps that is their MO - to sell their tech to an existing watch company, so they are not spending any money on design?