Though initially resistant, they were incentivized to do so with the ipod which acted as a "gateway drug" for people to switch to macs.
it's hard to believe anyone buys an iphone to get access to the watch, but if your watch is easier to use than your phone the incentive could run the other way
I don't find it hard to believe at all. If you want a good smart watch, the apple watch is the only game in town. If you just want a phone, androids are competitive (superior based on what I want out of a phone).
I've personally considered making my next phone an iphone just to get a watch (though I've so far avoided doing so out of distaste for the iphone). I've seen other people on the internet claim that they have.
That depends by what you define as "good". If you want built-in LTE connectivity then the Apple Watch is pretty much the only option. For most everything else, certain Garmin devices are equivalent or superior. Especially when it comes to battery life.
One particularly anticompetitive and anticonsumer action that Apple has taken is locking down the iPhone API for replying to text messages. Android devices allow third-party smartwatches to both display and respond to text messages. Consumers can pair a third-party smartwatch with an iPhone and read text messages but they aren't allowed to reply. There is no legitimate reason for this artificial limitation beyond product tying.
The Pixel Watch is a good option now for Android with built-in LTE connectivity. It's not on the level of the Apple Watch, but it's getting damn good, and every few months gets closer.
it's hard to believe anyone buys an iphone to get access to the watch, but if your watch is easier to use than your phone the incentive could run the other way