To some extent Apple is now a "lifestyle brand", like Rolex.

Rolex was originally a rugged, waterproof watch for people who needed such a watch. Pilots, divers, mariners, and military officers wore the things. Rolex had the accuracy of a marine chronometer in a small package. The Rolex Submariner was introduced in 1953 at $150. That would be $1,820 today. But the base price for a Rolex Submariner today, the same watch, is around $9,200, plus a few thousand dollars of "additional dealer profit". As the CEO of Rolex once said, "We are not in the watch business. We are in the luxury business." The people who need a rugged, accurate watch today get a G-Shock.

That may be Apple's path - to fashion themselves as a niche luxury brand.

I think the problem is deeper than that.

Apple Employees are "lifestyle employees". They can't imagine why someone wouldn't just buy the $5,000 spec of a laptop if they want a modest quantity of storage or memory, and then get another one in a few months time when that one gets old. They are too rich, too comfortable and too out of touch with the common person - and in many cases what people actually use their products for.

At the same time they try and squeeze every drop of money out of developers the can, Apple is owed for making their market available to others.

I don’t think Apple continues trying to be a “lifestyle brand” after their attempts with iPhone X, Apple Watch Edition. Apple products are not cheap but also not too far away from customers electronics.

>That may be Apple's path - to fashion themselves as a niche luxury brand.

You can't have a niche product when you have 55% market share (iPhone in US).

See also: Porsche.

Being a "lifestyle brand" works great, right up until it doesn't.