This still comes off as elitist, it's not like we have Watch Editions (which I'd compare to a Ferrari). it's $350 for a 38mm sport. I'm sorry, but that is not an obscene amount of money even for someone who works minimum wage, especially if you save. No one blinks an eye when people buy MacBooks or iPhones, or PS4s or Xbox Ones (which actually cost about the same or more once accessories and games are factored in).
The sport model exists for a reason (they sell it at Walmart!). It's why they have different classes of watch. Yes, it's a luxury item but so is an iPhone, so is a PS4, Beats headphones etc.
I have no problems making ends meet because, to me, the Apple Wath is fully within my price range. I also don't really give too much thought to what people tell me to spend my money on either, especially when I get use out of the product.
Like I said, I'm not really apologizing for how you take my opinion. I've lived the minimum wage lifestyle and that entitles me to comment on it.
A Ferrari may seem like an inappropriate comparison, but it's still something I cannot afford. No, rather it's something I could currently afford, but at the sacrifice of something far more important: my financial security and wellbeing. And I have no justification for it.
As for everything else you compare it to, MacBooks, iPhones, and to a lesser degree gaming consoles, there's justification for those things. People need phones, and computers, and to some degree, entertainment. I also recognize that one can't simply put every dime they make into practical application, denying themselves some pleasures in life, and so I'd say it's OK to buy Apple, when Samsung or Asus would do the job for less. And an X-Box is a cheaper alternative to a cable subscription, or going out to the movies every weekend. And a nice pair of headphones if you use them all the time -- they're luxuries, but justifiable. But a $350 Watch doesn't really fall into the criteria unless there's a specific need. And as I've stated, if there's justification, then fair enough. For most the Watch is merely a convenience that allows them to leave their iPhone in their pocket but otherwise duplicates all of its features. But that doesn't change the fact that minimum wage works out to about $16,000 a year in most states, which means that Watch costs over 2% of your annual income, after taxes. That's still a lot of money no matter how much you make, but especially if you don't make much.
Wal-Mart sells them now likely because Apple doesn't seem to be selling very many with their haute couture approach, and as I pointed out with my anectdotal observation, I don't see a lot of them on the wrists of corporate executives -- arguably the target market for such a device. Apple didn't mention the new Hermes watch bands at their Spring event either. Moreover, Apple gave Wal-Mart the watch despite Wal-Mart refusing to accept Pay, and offering their own proprietary contactless payment system instead, so it would seem Apple needed them more than Wal-Mart needed Apple. Besides, far more than minimum wage earners shop at Wal-Mart. In many rural communities, it's the only department or specialty store of any kind.
Again, you can spend your money however you want. But I can also state my opinion based on my own experience. If you truly don't give any thought to what others tell you about spending your money, then we really shouldn't even be having this debate anyway.