I think a big part of this is that Apple's products are in brand new/relatively unknown categories, and people are totally unfamiliar with what the dang thing is. By the time the iMac came out, everyone knew what a computer was. You didn't need to explain it, you needed to sell it.

When the iPhone came out, no one except Treo nerds really knew what the fuck a smartphone was. So their iPhone ads were mostly focused on educating the public about what this crazy new thing can do. Same with the iPad.

If you look at the old iPod ads, you see them applying both strategies at different times. The very first iPod ad they did (http://youtu.be/nWqj6OQQOHA) showed you exactly how the thing worked, from hardware to software. It basically walked you through a use case. Later ads (http://youtu.be/NbYT7x2ZKmk) when everyone knew what an iPod was, were much more aspirational.

My money says that in a few years, the iPad ads will head in that direction too. But there's a lot of education they still have to do.

The point was that at that time the brand was in need of rejuvenation, as it had been neglected.

Nowadays, I think everybody would agree that the brand is quite healthy, so the problem is to remind people that there are new shiny things under this shiny brand, which they should buy right now.

Apple simply didn’t have any shiny or great products in 1997. They were a mess.

I think that one reason the first iMacs were so colorful – so unlike every other later Apple product (except the smaller iPods) – is not that Jony Ive had a completely different taste back then, I think they were so colorful to make a big splash, to be visibly different, to save the company. Those were computers you could show off in ads (while still not talking about specs and speeds). Here is an ad from that era: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT4xftxMoMg

"consume different"?

Apple's target market used to be creative professionals, but now they've expanded to the mainstream (and there simply aren't enough creative professionals to sustain their growth), so it has to change.

That said, the iPad touchscreen certainly has creative possibilities - it's a graphics input tablet that's also a display (both called tablets). I can imagine new ways of interacting - eg. cut-and-paste by holding both ends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_tablet#Apple_Computer

Just an aside: the only downvotes I remember getting on HN are on Apple submissions. I eventually worked out that even the mildest criticism of Apple products, no matter how carefully articulated and justified, and no matter how intellectually interesting the point, would get downvotes. I also found that praising Apple would always get upvotes.

So these days, I mostly don't comment on Apple stories. It's not worth it, if you want to have an interesting discussion.

I think there are a few factors that contribute to this apparent trend. There have been a string of products that users love- creating a vocal and emotional group of commenters. At the same time, there's a lot of well intended criticism by people who have a bias against Aaple for reasons other than quality of products- some of whom just want to support the underdogs which may be just as good but not as well known to the public. There will always be a non negligible sentiment against popular companies or products based solely on the fact that they're popular (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, as it sort of acts as a natural capitalistic force against monopolies).

However, it seems to me that objective criticism is just as well upvoted as objective praise. It's usually just the snarky comments (in either direction) that are downvoted.

Elegant devices, seamless integration, simplicity -- what Apple's ads are all about today -- are brand advertising. That is the brand's promise and differentiation wrapped up in one tidy package.