Apple's customers don't like the advert. There's not point in Apple arguing with them. Its like trying to argue with someone about whether a joke is funny. If they didn't laugh the first time, having a debate about it just makes it worse.
Apple couldn't care less about anyone being offended or hurt. Apple cares about not buying again. And since the (effective) value proposition of an Apple product (at least for me) is: You don't have to worry about it. You can use it if you want, it will work. But you don't have to (it's not taking anything else away).
And this ad directly contradicts the second part. They needed to crush everything else! Which, while maybe true already, is most definitely _not_ a reason for me to buy anything. So, at least for me, but I'd argue at least subconsciously for most people, this ad is making it less likely that I buy the advertised product!
Naively I wonder if the tendency towards "plausible bullsh*t" could be problem here? Making very convincing legal arguments that rest of precedents that don't exist etc.
In a cringe-inducing court hearing, a lawyer who relied on A.I. to craft a motion full of made-up case law said he “did not comprehend” that the chat bot could lead him astray.
