[LeoPanthera]

I'm not sure I understand your criticism. He seems quite clear to me. He thinks that iThings are egalitarian products, but demonstrates that Apple as a whole is not, given the existence of Macs, and now the watch.

This is a worthwhile point to make, since people will compare the watch to iThings, not Macs.

[swang]

How can an article question if Apple's abandoned it's "egalitarianism" if it never was egalitarian in the first place? This is not my opinion either as the author literally says they are not, while initially using the iPhone/iPad to portray that Apple had an "egalitarian", "for the masses" feel.

Ignoring the fallacy of comparing an iPhone that cost hundreds of dollars when alternatives cost <$100 "egalitarian" to a sugary water drink, he uses the iPhone/iPad to pitch Apple as an "egalitarian" company then in the next paragraph refutes himself.

At the very least it is just not a very good analogy where he props one part of the company as something, when the rest of the company is definitely not that something.