I can completely understand the reasoning, and it is very clever indeed. This goes in line with the first Apple Watch Edition, which sold for $10k+ but wasn't very successful at all, not even for a luxury product. So they quietly removed it from sale and instead pushed the ceramic model which is still a luxury product both in looks and in price, but not at that gold tier.
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.
> However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time,
The base model iPhone has been $649 for as long as I can remember, which means it's technically gone down in price when you account for a decade of inflation...
By saying no need of an iPhone you mean to say no need of a phone altogether since the watch will already have LTE or you mean to say consumers will be free to buy any other phone?
Because just relying on the watch (for modes of communication, consumption etc) might have other constraints like battery life, reading, other forms of ease etc.
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.