Economics. It's way cheaper to buy a few old instruments (buy extra in case you want to do multiple takes) and just record them being crushed than to pay a team computer artists for weeks to simulate the physics and draw this all in photorealistic CG.
Why do you think its insane to model realistic looking explosions? It's done all the time. Even if it started as a practical prop it was certainly doctored to all hell. Stone statues don't squish and guitars don't actually explode...
If you look through it you can see the top of the guitar is even cut off at the neck, either as a prop or digitally.
The shots towards the end have nothing around the items being focused on, such as remnants of the larger items. Doesn't need to be CGI, just multiple takes stitched together.
Erm, none? There are tons of cuts. I didn't say they did it one take.
You can actually see that they repositioned the ball between the side shot of it rolling and the front shot of it getting squashed, which you wouldn't need to do it if was CG.
I don't think anyone can say with any certainty, and certainly not with 100%, without actually talking to the people behind the video. Modern CGI is absolutely insane. There is so much in modern movies & TV that goes right past the viewers without any suspicion at all.
The Corridor Crew YouTube channel taught me that CGI is everywhere and I don't have a clue. Highly suggest checking out some of their videos.
Yes, this could have been done with CGI, but that seems unlikely. As others mentioned, doing this level of CGI destruction is super expensive, and destroying stuff is pretty cheap.
But there's also the bigger factor that, if Apple didn't destroy a bunch of stuff, why haven't they said so? It seems to me that if this ad was entirely CGI, Apple would admit that to minimize the backlash.
Therefore, unless Apple says something (or someone does some very convincing analysis), I'm inclined to believe this ad was done primarily with practical effects. That's just where the evidence is pointing right now.
