That Apple is now a luxury brand is interesting/important but also strange — I know plenty of people across demographics who own an iPhone. Where the "luxury" enters the picture is in owning the latest
iPhone. And it's on this front that I think Scott's extended discussion in the Bloomberg interview gets interesting. Find that here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-03-12/the-incredible-turnaround-of-the-u-s-dollar-explained
The gross majority of people have a smartphone now, so how do you actually signal wealth with your technology? You extend it, and that's where Apple's entrance into a premium watch/wearables market (as perceived as a luxury move) gets interesting: it allows consumers to show that they've got the disposable income to throw at technology that seems (at least at first blush) as a luxury.
The luxury/attractiveness for mating perspective put forth by Scott is a useful way to think about things; however, perhaps "luxury" and displays of wealth are phase-shifting away (or building upon, more likely) from jewelry and designer jeans. The truly wealthy now must display their sexual prowess through their adoption of tech.
We live in a time when being able to transverse multiple, often disparate technologies is a prerequisite to getting the best jobs, making money, saving money
, increasing efficiency, saving time
, and on and on and on. The more capable of us on this front will be more wealthy (and more attractive for mating).
So Apple-as-luxury made manifest through their watch is, perhaps, more about a display of tech-adeptness than it is about having the disposable income to not only have the latest iPhone but also have the latest watch.
What is "luxury" and wealth is changing -- or at least growing to include things not typically considered as such.