OK, clearly everyone will have their own view on what constitutes "thin" in the context of a watch as it really is a personal preference thing. There is a trend in the watch market for chunkier, which has been going on for several years. There are also some very thin watches available - it's like bootcut vs straight leg jeans, dictated by preference and fashion.
I already have several "normal" watches which are just about the same size as the 42mm Apple Watch, and, in two cases, they are thicker than the Apple Watch.
I suspect that by "as thin as a normal watch" you really mean "as thin as other watches I like"?
I've worn many watches in my 46 years, from Swatches to my Citizen Eco-Drive. By no means am I a high-end watch owner, as others on this forum are (and I applaud their choices), and when I tried this one on, here are my thoughts:
1. This is the most important thing for a watch to do: It feels good on my wrist. I tried on the 42mm one, and the only complaint I had was with the store guy wanting to help me with it. He's not coming home with me, and I need to know how easy getting the band on is.
2. Apple needs to get rid of the demo mode on the store watches when you have an appointment. It's disconcerting to have a watch that is upside down on my wrist. It was opening day for watch try-ons, so I'll cut them some slack, but it would be nice (but a security nightmare) to have it pair to my phone, and I could use it like it was mine. It could be done in 15 minutes, and going over my security concerns, 2 of those 15 minutes could be spent selling that when I take it off (the watch, kids), you can't use Apple Pay with it without logging the watch back in.
3. They need to address the technical specs for those that like that kind of thing. I know Apple is making this a fashion accessory, but I'm not dropping $450 - $800 on a pretty bracelet. I do that for Mrs. thequick, but I need more functionality. I'm a guy. I know if I like how something looks in about 3.2 seconds, and I'll spend the following 14:56.8 figuring out if it's useful.
About the mystery port: If it's a diagnostic port, and they can't connect to the watch wirelessly, which I hope that the engineers at Apple put as a top priority (wireless connectivity), then the watch that can't be diagnosed will be replaced under warranty, and they can send it back to Apple for diagnostics.
There is a great mistake in thinking that wired equates to "reliable". A good example is a mouse or keyboard. The wire is just a transmission medium that can be used for power and communication, but what happens to those signals is pretty complex. You press on a key, and it closes a contact for a switch, which the chip in the keyboard converts to serial communication code, and transmits it to your computer (the wire or wirelessly), and the computer decodes this transmission to data that it can use. The reliability questions comes into play when it comes time to replace the batteries in the wireless devices. People equate that to being "unreliable," where, if you had a regular battery change out schedule, most people wouldn't recognize the difference between wireless and wired.
(just for the record, I have a wired keyboard, and wireless mouse and trackpad)
----------
This may have been covered already but how are we going to do software updates on the watch?
I think it will be wirelessly, like on the iPhone. This 8.3 update made me reflect on how long it's been since I hooked up my phone to the computer to do the update...
TVs (designed from when Jobs wasn't on the other side) have a miniature USB port on them. For years now it's done nothing but be used for diagnostic/firmware purposes. Even the jailbreakers can't get anything more out of it. If I was betting, I'd bet this watch port is much more a variation of that than some, future make-it-a-lot-better port with attachments and/or smart bracelets.
