It was an upsetting, almost cartoonish detail in the story, but it might be helpful to you here. On a rational level she should not be afraid of sausage. But years of abuse meant that she was. It's sad, but understandable. It's just how trauma and conditioning work.

One doesn't need to be a victim of racism to empathise with the fact that it has a profound and traumatising impact on people. Maybe you know something about OP that I don't, but if you are right, and there's no reason for them to be talking about race in this instance, it's unlikely you'll persuade them with incredulity that they hold the point of view they do.

OP didn't point out that anyone was white, they pointed out that although Apple included a variety of races in the video, they believe that this is a service which will appeal to upper and upper middle class Americans, which means predominantly white Americans.

They are talking about class, and noting as an aside that they believe this service caters to a predominantly white audience as a consequence of catering to the upper and middle classes.

The point is inane because ultimately Apple sells luxury consumer goods which are affordable only to the upper and middle classes, and as you point out Apple rightly has no interest in fighting for equality through its new fitness service.

I agree with your point, I'm just saying that OP's point, whilst unintentionally clumsy, did not bring race into it in a meaningful way.

This is so not true.

As someone who works with students from families that are low-income, they have lots of Apple products.

If Apple is a luxury brand—which I disagree with—then it’s the most accessible luxury brand out there.

It certainly is a quality brand. There’s way too much focus on $1000+ flagship phones instead of items like the iPhone SE, which even low-income people can afford at $199 on contract.

The Apple Watch 3 is also $199. These devices are less expensive than a shirt or scarf in a Neman Marcus…

I disagree, but I understand this line of thinking, as it supports the false narrative that the iPhone is a luxury item like a Louis Vuitton bag and thus equally unattainable compared to the alternative.

You have it backwards.

A designer handbag is not a necessity; it's a nice to have. It's optional, especially a new one that costs $3,750.00 [1]. Owning such a bag shows you can blow nearly $4000 on a decorative item and not be concerned about how you're going to pay rent, buy groceries and all the rest. Many people aspire to be able to spend $4000 in a carefree manner.

Certainly we can agree that it's a luxury item.

A new iPhone SE is $399 ($16.66/month), well within the reach of many more people—that's before we get to a carrier discount, etc. A cell phone isn't a nice to have; it's pretty close to being a necessity for the majority of Americans. Interestingly enough, it would easily run circles around Android devices that cost twice as much.

Almost by definition, a luxury item is expensive for what it is. A luxury item is exclusive—you can't just get it anywhere or at anytime. You kinda have to know where to go to get such an item.

Apple has sold more than 1 billion iPhones and you can buy one at Walmart, Target, Best Buy and dozens of other retailers. You don't need to be part of an exclusive club to get one. Apple has 40-45% of the US smartphone market, making it pretty common.

Real luxury items have a tiny marketshare, usually in the single digits. Part of the allure is these items are not common.

High school kids from poor families bagging groceries after school have their own iPhones these days.

[1]: https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/products/twist-mini-epi-n...

It seems like I might not have been very clear, so I'll summarise my points again briefly:

1. Apple products are in general only affordable to the middle and upper classes. 2. That does not mean that they are only attainable to the middle and upper classes: I specifically said affordable because a poor person owning an Apple device does not mean that it is "for" them in the same way as a middle class person owning a Ferrari does not mean that Ferraris are "for" the middle classes. 3. Your refutation of my point is that you know low income folks who have iPhone. But that isn't what makes something a luxury product or not, and if we draw the line in this way (Apple can't be luxury because poor people own it), then LV is not a luxury product because plenty of poor folks have LV goods too.

Hopefully that makes sense. From your most recent reply:

> a designer handbag is not a necessity

No doubt.

> A cell phone isn't a nice to have; it's pretty close to being a necessity

Agreed, but you're (presumably accidentally) creating a false equivalence by implicitly comparing the necessity of a designer handbag and any cell phone. The more illustrative comparisons would be any handbag to any cell phone, and an LV handbag specifically to an iPhone specifically. (I would expect you agree that "handbag adoption" amongst women is likely to be as high as cell phone adoption, right?)

The things which make a cell phone a necessity -- a fixed phone # to be contacted on, messaging, and web browsing -- are accessible at far lower price points than any iPhone, including the SE. You can get all of them in a $30 Alcatel handset. iPhone does the same stuff, but nicer (and more expensive).

Clearly wanting a slightly nicer thing than the very cheapest one available does not mean that you are buying a luxury good. The economic underpinning of a luxury good is that as income drops, propensity to spend on it reduces disproportionately (and the inverse is also true). The idea being that folks use their capital to take care of necessities, and increases in income yield the purchase of things which are not necessities. When times get tough, the first things which people stop buying -- and they stop buying them disproportionately to the drop in wealth -- are luxury items.

The iPhone SE is almost certainly the product of Apple's struggle with this very issue. iPhone ASP prior to the SE was c. $900, and I would bet good money that a lot of Apple's customers switch away from iPhone to cheaper handsets when they fall on tough times.

It's fairly uncharted territory, because for the first time the very best product in the market is one which is reasonably attainable, but that does not mean that Apple is a mass market brand. Andy Warhol wrote this about Coca-Cola, which I think helps to drive at the challenge in categorising Apple:

> You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

For two decades, this sort of calculus was not possible in the handset industry, but now there is nearly zero subjectivity. You don't need a $25,000 Vertu phone to know you have the best phone in the market, you can just go and buy a $1200 iPhone 11 Pro.

But the fact that cell phones are now a necessity shouldn't confuse us into thinking that Apple is not a luxury brand.

1. The ASP for iPhone is $900, and they report c. 70% of their mix being the Pro models. 2. ASPs for the remainder of the handset market are lower, and Apple is outsold about 4:1 globally by other manufacturers. They attract about 20% of buyers globally, and from the ASP we can be fairly sure that they are people spending the most money in the market. 3. From a utilitarian perspective we know that iPhone does not do anything which other handsets do not in the same way as a Ferrari does not do anything which a Prius does not. So if you are paying for iPhone you are paying a premium for "nice". 4. The people I am saying are excluded by Apple's strategy (lower income households) account for about 30% of the US. This is a really important point: your view of what is luxury can be distorted quite easily. (See also prevalence of LV bags in China.)