> I think Apple gets a pass because they're a luxury product.

No they aren't. They've just convinced everyone that they are.

I've seen people meme about Android being for people who couldn't afford an iPhone when the fact is that a flagship Android costs just as much as an iPhone.

I tried a "flagship Android" phone once (the top of the line Samsung), it was bugging the second I opened the pack. I returned it and got a cheap Pixel budget line phone. Then a few years later I jumped ship to iPhone, and largely am very happy now. Nothing is perfect, but for me, iPhone is the best I've tried.

That's the contemporary luxury market for nearly all goods; signifiers that tell folks "this item is more valuable because it has the magic sigil" or whatever.

That is the reality of pretty much every "luxury product/brand"...

It is convincing people to pay a premium for what is still at the end of the day a stitched leather bag, watch, computer or smartphone made in factories like everything else.

People pay for names, to project their luxury lifestyle.

It is very rare that the actual quality/performance of a "luxury item" is dramatically above a high-quality equivalent. Does a Rolex tell time and look better than a Breitling? Or a Tag Heur? Or a Seiko? Each of those represents a different price/style point - and ultimately it is subjective to a consumer - who wants to project a certain style/look.

Or several times more, in some cases

> No they aren't. They've just convinced everyone that they are.

What’s the difference?

Either way, Apple consistently makes decisions that I think put them on the side of “luxury item” — even if I often disagree with those decisions.