The comparison chart and cover photo show other "real watches" like the "Tag Heuer Aquaracer 300M" which costs only.. $2,300 ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055NBVDM ).
Ars Technica reviews are usually good but they couldn't have found a watch that's not 10X the Moto's price to compare aesthetics to?
As for the comparison, I'm sure that was a bit tongue and cheek. No one buys a > $1k watch for functionality. Anyways, if you ever get a chance to attend Basel World, I highly recommend it.
I think you hit on the key point so many are missing; apparel is rarely about functionality.
Technologists understand the comparative value of functionality; they generally do not understand the value of fashion.
For example, I see so many techies thinking people are "stupid" to keep buying "shiny Apple stuff". That only shows a shallow understanding of "software is eating the world". People spend WAY more money on apparel than they do tech. The next wave of tech growth is much less about smart refrigerators, and much more about smart socks & belts.
Just like everyone wears shoes, EVERYONE is going to have a smartphone, soon. This is a profoundly new thing.
It seemed to me like the watches were in there for size comparison. Even on the costs are wildly different, they show that the Motorola isn't outlandishly large or heavy compared to other fashion watches.
The comparison was about acceptable diameter, thickness and weight for watches. The price is not relevant to point out that the 360 is within "normal" size parameters, and significantly below the upper bound for weight.
Ars Technica reviews are usually good but they couldn't have found a watch that's not 10X the Moto's price to compare aesthetics to?
*Edit: Corrected site name.