[mmjaa]

I wonder, did you read the scientific papers linked? Apple are just the new peacocks - there is much historical evidence of sexual signalling in consumption markets, and I urge you to read the papers linked: you may well learn something from them, and either your opinion of MacBooks will change, or it may even become stronger, for the understanding therein..

[vmarsy]

I wonder as well if you read the papers too? you may learn something from them as well.

"We investigate the idea that women’s flaunting of designer products functions as a signaling system directed at same-sex rivals who pose a threat to a woman’s relationship. We hypothesize that some women use pricey possessions to signal to other women that their romantic partner is especially devoted to them. In turn, flaunting designer handbags and shoes helps women deter romantic rivals from poaching their relationship partner"

Today iPhones and MacBook are mostly mass market for the middle class, as you can see from their presence in universities. Out of all the women owning an iPhone, and there's a lot, I've yet to meet one whose iPhone was bought by their 'devoted romantic partner'. They either bought it themselves, or their parents bought it in the family plan. And usually the phone itself is paid monthly with the plan.

Showing an iPhone does not have the same signalling effect as wearing "luxurious designer handbags", designer shoes, and "expensive jewelry".

[mmjaa]

Yes, I did read the papers, with great interest.

And the point is: It doesn't seem to fit Apple any more, by your reckoning.

But it did at some stage. You don't get to mass-market acceptance without a phase where you dominate the signalling markets. Those middle-class students with MacBooks' are the norm today - but there was a phase where it wasn't so, in Apples' history. Don't overlook that transition.