I've always been a sceptic of the Apple Watch, for the simple reason that I fail to see value in a small and portable remote control for a device that is already small and portable - and that you still need to carry with you in order to use the former.
But I agree with Belligero entirely. Actually, a couple of months ago my phone broke after much abuse. I decided to downgrade, rather than upgrade: I didn't want a bigger phone, I wanted one that fits more easily in my pocket. I didn't need a faster processor or a more advanced screen; I have a PC with a large monitor for actual work or watching videos, or dealing with graphic detail, or reading long articles. What I wanted instead was a better battery life. I didn't need to wait for a new pressure-sensitive touch interface. I did see a good reason to have a dual SIM option.
So instead of upgrading my old $500 phone to the latest $500+ version, or comparing the bewildering array of options at the top of the market, I started with a simple list of what I wanted, and found out that it was very little: I wanted a screen maximum 5", a browser for occasional rather than principal use, and the ability to download limited applications, and receive my emails. Most of all I just wanted a phone, preferably that didn't require any fiddling with SIM cards when I travel between the UK and Oman. That was all. It costs $110, it is just a simple black rectangle that is barely recognisable - no "statement" about this brand or that - and it works. As a bonus, because of the limited processor power (that makes no difference to me at all), the battery lasts about 48 hours with normal use. Stick that up your arse, Apple.
Sometimes less is more. The absence of an Apple Watch also qualifies.