I'm not here to internet-argue with you. I share your disdain for "in-your-face" product placements in movies.
I'm with you. Stepping back and evaluating the work of a director from all sides, I think almost all directors have sold out as artists in choosing a medium where they must pander to their audience to entice them to purchase tickets to see the work. The director is catering the artistic work to the supposed taste of the intended audience. When movies "flop" at the box office, frequently it's because the director executed their vision poorly, had a bad vision, or the producers forced a crappy vision through cells on their spreadsheets for what makes a successful film. Sometimes, though, a movie flops because the director abandoned consideration of the audience and pushed forward with the movie THEY wanted to make. Recent examples are Joker 2 and Megalopolis.
Regarding Apple, the company claims it does not pay for product placement in TV shows or movies. If a character is using a MacBook and the logo is visible, it's because the director wanted to associate the character with the brand for some reason other than financial. HP or DELL would have paid for the placement, so the director was leaving money on the table by choosing that Apple logo.
The referenced "no villains policy" is a
preference by Apple, but there is no case history of enforcing it. Per
this article:In John Wick, the man who kills John's dog and steals his car is seen using an iPhone, and Josh Hartnett's serial killer character in Trap also appears to be using an Apple device. Some fans pointed out that an iPhone also appears in a villain's briefcase in Marvel's 2015 movie Ant-Man.